Australian Aged Pension

[Artisi]

44 minutes ago, ELVIS123456 said:

Details are important, and what you know on this issue is wrong - the age qualification for people born after 1 January 1957 is 67.  

 

If your birthdate is	you’ll be old enough at
1 July 1952 to 31 December 1953	65 years and 6 months
1 January 1954 to 30 June 1955	66 years
1 July 1955 to 31 December 1956	66 years and 6 months
From 1 January 1957	67 years

 

It is important to be correct because people read these discussions and some make decisions based on what they read.  The age requirement for the OAP is not 70 - it is as above.

 

The Libs want to increase it, but as of yet they have not been successful. Labor has stated it opposes any age increase and will not change it in the future (if in Govt).

 

Sticking with the politics of OAP - I cannot fathom how Turnbull and his cohorts in Libs/Nats dont understand that their 'base' is the middle-old age group. Young people predominately vote Labor and older people predominately vote Libs/Nats. Some say people get wiser as they age - some say they get early onset dementia 

Either way, Turnbull has introduced many changes to Super and OAP, that have been detrimental to those on or at that age group. Plus they have proposed a lot more negative changes.  Turnbull is the dumbest smart politician I have ever known - he needs to look at what Howard did to look after his 'base'.  Guaranteed that Labor will introduce changes that help the 'poor' - because the 'poor' vote for them. Libs/Nats need to smarten up or they are out - and Super and OAP is one issue they need to re-address. 

 

 

 

Politics aside, you are spot on regarding posting correct information, but to rely on information posted on an open forum and acting on  it without checking it from the appropriate authority is pretty foolish. 

[sceadugenga]

Which is why anyone wishing to have their views considered seriously should include a link to their source.

[David Walden]

2 hours ago, ELVIS123456 said:

Details are important, and what you know on this issue is wrong - the age qualification for people born after 1 January 1957 is 67.  

 

If your birthdate is	you’ll be old enough at
1 July 1952 to 31 December 1953	65 years and 6 months
1 January 1954 to 30 June 1955	66 years
1 July 1955 to 31 December 1956	66 years and 6 months
From 1 January 1957	67 years

 

It is important to be correct because people read these discussions and some make decisions based on what they read.  The age requirement for the OAP is not 70 - it is as above.

 

The Libs want to increase it, but as of yet they have not been successful. Labor has stated it opposes any age increase and will not change it in the future (if in Govt).

 

Sticking with the politics of OAP - I cannot fathom how Turnbull and his cohorts in Libs/Nats dont understand that their 'base' is the middle-old age group. Young people predominately vote Labor and older people predominately vote Libs/Nats. Some say people get wiser as they age - some say they get early onset dementia 

Either way, Turnbull has introduced many changes to Super and OAP, that have been detrimental to those on or at that age group. Plus they have proposed a lot more negative changes.  Turnbull is the dumbest smart politician I have ever known - he needs to look at what Howard did to look after his 'base'.  Guaranteed that Labor will introduce changes that help the 'poor' - because the 'poor' vote for them. Libs/Nats need to smarten up or they are out - and Super and OAP is one issue they need to re-address. 

 

 

 

As I said before politics and pedantics (Aussie spelling) aside both major parties have an objective to increase the aged pension to 70 y/o by about 2035 after proving that an applicant has been resident in Australia for 35 years since the age of 16 y/o.  As far as I know presently you are only have to be resident 26/27 years to qualify.  I understand the full 35 year qualifying period will not be required till 2035 or when an applicant turns 70 y/o..perhaps I'm not up to date but I am fairly sure as much as anyone can be of Australian politics that that will be the final outcome.  

[ELVIS123456]

2 hours ago, Artisi said:

Politics aside, you are spot on regarding posting correct information, but to rely on information posted on an open forum and acting on  it without checking it from the appropriate authority is pretty foolish. 

True - but if you take a look back at some of the 150+ pages, some blokes have read a lot of mis-information and believed the things said that are not right. Foolish maybe, but that is why they come to this post because most of s are here to try and help.  It irks me when someone states something wrong as a fact, or says something you have stated is wrong, when it is correct in that situation. Those people are are just opinionated and are never wrong - no names mentioned - and they are just misinforming people.  As another poster has said: dont believe anything someone says that doesn't provide links, or doesn't have a history of being right.

 

 

 

 

[Nemises]

Which is why anyone wishing to have their views considered seriously should include a link to their source.

Does anyone know a link that confirms that remaining in Aus for 2 years PRIOR to pension eligibility date guarantees residency and immediate portability?

[scorecard]

59 minutes ago, ELVIS123456 said:

True - but if you take a look back at some of the 150+ pages, some blokes have read a lot of mis-information and believed the things said that are not right. Foolish maybe, but that is why they come to this post because most of s are here to try and help.  It irks me when someone states something wrong as a fact, or says something you have stated is wrong, when it is correct in that situation. Those people are are just opinionated and are never wrong - no names mentioned - and they are just misinforming people.  As another poster has said: dont believe anything someone says that doesn't provide links, or doesn't have a history of being right.

 

 

 

 

 

 

All true and unfortunately some postings (any subject) are opinions from 4th hand hearsay and some postings are centered around what the poster would like to have / like the regulations to be, rather than the actual regulations and their exact meaning.

 

Further, and it's not only Centrelink, some staff give wrong answers to telephone enquiries, so even more reason to do a serious check to find what is totally correct.

 

I know from one serious example, I called the hotline of an OZ gov't agency and received a completely incorrect answer over the phone and I then believed I had no entitlement and took no further action.

 

Some 4 years later I called the same agency on another matter, and then asked 'by the way have the regulations regarding xxxx changed?' The officer was a bit shocked and politely asked me to explain what I was meaning. It turned out that the interpretation / advice I had received 4 years earlier was totally wrong.

 

The officer was quite concerned and apologized for the error 4 years back, and he was kind enough to quickly send me some further literature and an application form and he offered to check the application form by e-mail, before it was submitted.

 

Some months later my application was approved with no further questions or requests for more details or documents. 

 

 

Edited April 7, 2018 by scorecard

[David Walden]

4 hours ago, ELVIS123456 said:

Details are important, and what you know on this issue is wrong - the age qualification for people born after 1 January 1957 is 67.  

 

If your birthdate is	you’ll be old enough at
1 July 1952 to 31 December 1953	65 years and 6 months
1 January 1954 to 30 June 1955	66 years
1 July 1955 to 31 December 1956	66 years and 6 months
From 1 January 1957	67 years

 

It is important to be correct because people read these discussions and some make decisions based on what they read.  The age requirement for the OAP is not 70 - it is as above.

 

The Libs want to increase it, but as of yet they have not been successful. Labor has stated it opposes any age increase and will not change it in the future (if in Govt).

 

Sticking with the politics of OAP - I cannot fathom how Turnbull and his cohorts in Libs/Nats dont understand that their 'base' is the middle-old age group. Young people predominately vote Labor and older people predominately vote Libs/Nats. Some say people get wiser as they age - some say they get early onset dementia 

Either way, Turnbull has introduced many changes to Super and OAP, that have been detrimental to those on or at that age group. Plus they have proposed a lot more negative changes.  Turnbull is the dumbest smart politician I have ever known - he needs to look at what Howard did to look after his 'base'.  Guaranteed that Labor will introduce changes that help the 'poor' - because the 'poor' vote for them. Libs/Nats need to smarten up or they are out - and Super and OAP is one issue they need to re-address. 

 

 

 

You remind me of a man who said "I wrote you a 5 page letter because I didn't have time to write you 1 page letter".    I am aware that the 67 y/o criteria at present is the only development in this matter so far.  It is still 10 years before they put up to 68 y/o one year for each 4 years but you can bet that by 2035 you will have to be 70 y/o ...put money on it.   Liberal or Labour? 

Edited April 7, 2018 by David Walden

[sceadugenga]

I think we should get back to what the legislation currently is rather than pedantically discussing what it may or may not become.

[chokdeea]

https://www.humanservices.gov.au/individuals/australian-pension-news

 

https://www.humanservices.gov.au/individuals/enablers/pension-rates-payable-people-outside-australia

 

I hope the above helps.

[chokdeea]

The below can be difficult to fully understand but worth an effort:

 

http://guides.dss.gov.au/guide-social-security-law/updates

 

http://guides.dss.gov.au/guide-social-security-law

 

http://guides.dss.gov.au/guide-social-security-law/7

 

http://guides.dss.gov.au/guide-social-security-law/7/1

[Artisi]

46 minutes ago, chokdeea said:

The below can be difficult to fully understand but worth an effort:

 

http://guides.dss.gov.au/guide-social-security-law/updates

 

http://guides.dss.gov.au/guide-social-security-law

 

http://guides.dss.gov.au/guide-social-security-law/7

 

http://guides.dss.gov.au/guide-social-security-law/7/1

This and the previous post sums up the situation pretty well. The only comment from myself based on experience is the portability aspect, this is open to discussion and comes down to you proving you were still a resident (in terms of the rules) even if in and out of the country over a number of years, it's not automatic but was possible in my case about 10 years back. From a quick read of the current rules they don't seem much different now than before. 

[Artisi]

2 hours ago, scorecard said:

 

 

All true and unfortunately some postings (any subject) are opinions from 4th hand hearsay and some postings are centered around what the poster would like to have / like the regulations to be, rather than the actual regulations and their exact meaning.

 

Further, and it's not only Centrelink, some staff give wrong answers to telephone enquiries, so even more reason to do a serious check to find what is totally correct.

 

I know from one serious example, I called the hotline of an OZ gov't agency and received a completely incorrect answer over the phone and I then believed I had no entitlement and took no further action.

 

Some 4 years later I called the same agency on another matter, and then asked 'by the way have the regulations regarding xxxx changed?' The officer was a bit shocked and politely asked me to explain what I was meaning. It turned out that the interpretation / advice I had received 4 years earlier was totally wrong.

 

The officer was quite concerned and apologized for the error 4 years back, and he was kind enough to quickly send me some further literature and an application form and he offered to check the application form by e-mail, before it was submitted.

 

Some months later my application was approved with no further questions or requests for more details or documents. 

 

 

Good points, borne out by my own experience when I challenged Centrelink on portability, while ever it was undertaken verbally in most cases face to face the answer wasn't really going anywhere other than what the manual said, luckily one staff asked if I would like to lodge an official written request which she did via the internal computor system, within 14 days as advised the matter was finalised after answering a couple of question from the independent case officer from some other office, it was resolved in my favour. 

Since then I have had very little dealings with CL, but always with the Tasmanian office looking after people living o/seas - they seem a lot better informed on the rules and regulations than the local suburbian CL office staff. 

If in doubt, ring the Tassie office. 

 

Edit : seems to me,  initially when applying for the pension it is done at a local level, once granted and you move o/seas it is handled from Tassie. 

Edited April 7, 2018 by Artisi

[nev]

Just a quick question, I have done a few trips back usually for 3 months then 9 months in Thailand, question is how would they calculate the Three months stay, As a full year or part of a year towards the 35 years, I never let them know I am living overseas just holiday and my accountant does my tax return each year as I am self employed.

Just curious as I have been a tax payer since 1980 when I arrived from England and a citizen since 86, That's 38 years but the last 10 years in and out of Thailand many times.

[ELVIS123456]

http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdb/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ssa1991186/

 

The above is what the DHS/CLink staff work off - that and the circulars that 'clarify' specific situations and details updated decisions by SSAT and AATT.

 

The below is an example of what they go through when referring to the ACT:

 

http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ssa1991186/s1064.html

 

[ELVIS123456]

18 minutes ago, nev said:

Just a quick question, I have done a few trips back usually for 3 months then 9 months in Thailand, question is how would they calculate the Three months stay, As a full year or part of a year towards the 35 years, I never let them know I am living overseas just holiday and my accountant does my tax return each year as I am self employed.

Just curious as I have been a tax payer since 1980 when I arrived from England and a citizen since 86, That's 38 years but the last 10 years in and out of Thailand many times.

The issue of 35 years (for 100% portability of OAP once approved) relates to the number of years in total that you lived full-time in Australia since your 16th birthday.  Once a person has reached 35 years in total, then they meet that requirement no matter what they do after that. 

 

In your case, 1980 plus 35 years is 2015 - so therefore your last 10 years of travelling is critical to the net 35 years.  Were you an Aust Resident during that period is the question.  Periods of time overseas on holidays are counted towards the 35 years.  But if CLink (delegate etc.) decides that you were actually living overseas and not on holidays, they can discount all the time you were living overseas (including the times you visited Australia).

 

These are the links to those relevant sections and the definitions:  

https://www.humanservices.gov.au/individuals/enablers/residence-descriptions

http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ssa1991186/s7.html?context=1;query=definition of a resident;mask_path=au/legis/cth/consol_act/ssa1991186

 

All of the above are facts - now my opinion :)  This is a very difficult thing to determine, and CLink will not provide an answer 'in advance' - they will only provide a determination once you lodge an application - and any verbal advice from CLink before that is not worth the paper it is written on.  The reason is simple - it is only once a person make the application and provides all the information required, that CLink can undertake the formal process of making a determination.  They will not undertake a determination in response to an informal question.  

 

By the sounds of it you have been trying to maintain your residency while visiting Thailand, so maybe you are going to be viewed as a resident for all that period and make the 35 years - but you need to do more research - and remember that tax residency is not DHS/CLink residency (two very different situations).

 

One of the reasons we came back to live in Aus prior to applying for the OAP,  was to make absolutely sure the 35 years is met, and that the OAP portability is not in question from the start.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[ELVIS123456]

3 hours ago, Gregster said:

Does anyone know a link that confirms that remaining in Aus for 2 years PRIOR to pension eligibility date guarantees residency and immediate portability?
 

I have never seen anything that specifically states the period of time for a previous Aust resident to return PRIOR to the OAP being granted - by that I mean in the government links below and other Govt sites/docs:

 

https://www.dss.gov.au/about-the-department/international/policy/portability-of-australian-income-support-payments

http://guides.dss.gov.au/guide-social-security-law/7/1/4

 

The relevant paragraph in the first link states:

Portability of payments for former residence

The fundamental tenets of the Australian social security system are residence and need. Because residence is a fundamental qualification criterion for Australian social security payments, former residents who return to Australia and subsequently claim Australian social security payments with indefinite portability, are required to stay in Australia for at least two years before their payment becomes portable. The policy rationale for this requirement is that indefinite portability is only available to Australian residents. The former resident rule prevents people who lose their connections with Australia to return to Australia just to obtain a pension and return overseas.

 

My understanding of that sentence underlined and the other parts I have read, is that if a former resident returns to Australia prior to getting the OAP,  and re-establishes their Aust residency prior to getting the OAP, then they have indefinite portability straight away - like all other Aust  residents.  However, there is nothing I could find in the legislation or rules that formally states that it must be two years or more before the OAP is granted. 

 

But having said that, I once saw a ruling in an appeal against CLink, that stated that the person was (again) a resident before they applied, but they had not been a resident for a long enough period  prior to the OAP application, and therefore the decision to deny portability was upheld.  I believe that the decision recommended that portability should only be granted after a net two years period (before and afterwards combined) otherwise people would come back 6 months beforehand and re-establish resdiency and then immediately leave (like this guy did try to do). 

 

This area is one of the main reasons I decided to mainly live in Aust for some years before the OAP was granted, and to live thereafter in both. That research lead me to the view that 'waiting period' is probably going to be increased at some time in the near future. 

 

This is where the rulings of the AAT are published (not easy to search - could not find it):

http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdb/au/cases/cth/AATA/

 

 

 

[giddyup]

28 minutes ago, ELVIS123456 said:

   I believe that the decision recommended that portability should only be granted after a net two years period (before and afterwards combined) otherwise people would come back 6 months beforehand and re-establish resdiency and then immediately leave (like this guy did try to do). 

I'm not sure what they are achieving by making people stay the 2 years, either before qualifying or after.  If your intention is to leave as soon as portability is obtained, what does the 2 year stay prove?

[David Walden]

8 hours ago, ELVIS123456 said:

Details are important, and what you know on this issue is wrong - the age qualification for people born after 1 January 1957 is 67.  

 

If your birthdate is	you’ll be old enough at
1 July 1952 to 31 December 1953	65 years and 6 months
1 January 1954 to 30 June 1955	66 years
1 July 1955 to 31 December 1956	66 years and 6 months
From 1 January 1957	67 years

 

It is important to be correct because people read these discussions and some make decisions based on what they read.  The age requirement for the OAP is not 70 - it is as above.

 

The Libs want to increase it, but as of yet they have not been successful. Labor has stated it opposes any age increase and will not change it in the future (if in Govt).

 

Sticking with the politics of OAP - I cannot fathom how Turnbull and his cohorts in Libs/Nats dont understand that their 'base' is the middle-old age group. Young people predominately vote Labor and older people predominately vote Libs/Nats. Some say people get wiser as they age - some say they get early onset dementia 

Either way, Turnbull has introduced many changes to Super and OAP, that have been detrimental to those on or at that age group. Plus they have proposed a lot more negative changes.  Turnbull is the dumbest smart politician I have ever known - he needs to look at what Howard did to look after his 'base'.  Guaranteed that Labor will introduce changes that help the 'poor' - because the 'poor' vote for them. Libs/Nats need to smarten up or they are out - and Super and OAP is one issue they need to re-address. 

 

 

 

I think I am as about as right as can be when it comes to speculation about what the situation will be in another 18 years.  Even a week is a long time in politics.

[giddyup]

1 minute ago, David Walden said:

I think I am as about as right as can be when it comes to speculation about what the situation will be in another 18 years.  Even a week is a long time in politics.

Speculation is exactly that. No one can predict what will be the situation in 18 years.

[ELVIS123456]

1 hour ago, giddyup said:

I'm not sure what they are achieving by making people stay the 2 years, either before qualifying or after.  If your intention is to leave as soon as portability is obtained, what does the 2 year stay prove?

I agree it is out of order and really proves nothing.  But the Govt wanted to stop people coming back and staying with family/friends for a few weeks while they applied for the OAP, and then once it was approved they immediately left and took it with them.  I think anyone who has lived 35+ years in Aust (post 16) should be exempt from having to return to apply for the OAP.

 

 

[ELVIS123456]

1 hour ago, David Walden said:

I think I am as about as right as can be when it comes to speculation about what the situation will be in another 18 years.  Even a week is a long time in politics.

Gotta agree with that.   It could even be 75 by the time my kids retire.  

 

 

[giddyup]

2 minutes ago, ELVIS123456 said:

I agree it is out of order and really proves nothing.  But the Govt wanted to stop people coming back and staying with family/friends for a few weeks while they applied for the OAP, and then once it was approved they immediately left and took it with them.  I think anyone who has lived 35+ years in Aust (post 16) should be exempt from having to return to apply for the OAP.

 

 

But so what if they leave immediately after it's granted? Forcing them to stay for 2 years really achieves nothing. If you have qualified by being a resident for 35 years that should be it. What you do once receiving the OAP is your business alone. There must be some logic to it, but I fail to see what it is.

[Artisi]

47 minutes ago, ELVIS123456 said:

I agree it is out of order and really proves nothing.  But the Govt wanted to stop people coming back and staying with family/friends for a few weeks while they applied for the OAP, and then once it was approved they immediately left and took it with them.  I think anyone who has lived 35+ years in Aust (post 16) should be exempt from having to return to apply for the OAP.

 

 

I agree, after a given length of stay,   whatever is reasonable - but not 35 and not more than say 5 years away from Australia - due consideration should be applied. 

[halloween]

Note that there are errors even in the printed/published CL documents. All articles related to the Pension Bonus (allows $250 earnings/fn, cumulative, without loss of pension) state it is not available to self-employment. Many of the taxi drivers in OZ are pensioners, are definitely self employed, but work under the Pension Bonus scheme. Note that their no loss earnings are actually $418, as there is another rarely mentioned $168/fn which is not cumulative. I have sent an information request to CL asking for a ruling on my upcoming OAP situation, waiting result.

 

BTW there is pressure being mounted from pensioner groups to raise the pension bonus to $400/fn with an allowed accumulation of $10,000. My thought is if this occurs I could return for 3 months tax free work and maintain my oz residence status with Medicare.

Edited April 7, 2018 by halloween

[ELVIS123456]

2 hours ago, halloween said:

Note that there are errors even in the printed/published CL documents. All articles related to the Pension Bonus (allows $250 earnings/fn, cumulative, without loss of pension) state it is not available to self-employment. Many of the taxi drivers in OZ are pensioners, are definitely self employed, but work under the Pension Bonus scheme. Note that their no loss earnings are actually $418, as there is another rarely mentioned $168/fn which is not cumulative. I have sent an information request to CL asking for a ruling on my upcoming OAP situation, waiting result.

 

BTW there is pressure being mounted from pensioner groups to raise the pension bonus to $400/fn with an allowed accumulation of $10,000. My thought is if this occurs I could return for 3 months tax free work and maintain my oz residence status with Medicare.

My understanding of the Pension Bonus Scheme was that it was a payment that was given to people who continued to work past their OAP qualified age, and who did not claim the OAP. It was a bonus for those who continued to work and did not claim the OAP as far as I knew. And I believe that it was stopped a few years ago - although those still on it can stay on it and accrue up to a 5 years payment, which they then claim when they apply for the OAP. 

 

My understanding of the allowable income while still getting the full OAP is $168 f/fnight ($84 a week or $4368 per year).  But I am not sure if it is accumulative or not - meaning if someone can work for a few weeks and earn up to $4368, and not have any affect on their OAP.  I am very interested in knowing more about this for the future Halloween - please let us know how your request to CLink goes. 

  

I was thinking that when I am in Aust in the future (will be living in both countries when OAP approved), I could do a little Uber/Grab driving to pick up a little cash without affecting the OAP.  But if it is not accumulative and I can only earn up to $84 every week (or $168 per fnight) before losing part of the OAP, then it is not worth it at all.

 

Just another way the Govt in Aust have screwed over the people on the OAP.  How the hell can anyone earn an income of only $84 a week - the min wage is about $20 an hour so that equates to working for about 4 hours a week - <deleted>?  Who would go through all the trouble (insurances, compensation, super, payrolls, etc) to hire someone for only 4 hrs a week?  And why would anyone want to work for just a few hours a week - more trouble than it is worth.  Maybe if someone sold stuff on the net or something like that, but why would anyone even do that if they could only earn $84 a week before they lose part of their OAP?  And here is the big thing - you lose $0.50 for every $1 over the $84 a week!!  50% of whatever you earn over $84 is taken off your OAP - <deleted>?  Maybe 10% or even 20% - but 50%? 

 

IMO someone on the OAP should be able to earn up to the tax free threshold, before they then lose 50% in the $1 for every dollar over that amount.  The Govt aint gonna get any tax anyway, so why limit someone on the OAP making a little extra by working/earning? Why force people on the OAP to stay poor??   Aust is a effinn socialist duopoly mascarading as a capitalist democracy - no wonder I hate the place (but love the free medical system).

 

But I must say - we recently moved up north to 'Gods Country' because the weather down south in VIC and ACT was way to cold for my wife's Thai genes (and me too).  People far more relaxed here and no speed cameras everywhere and no road signs telling me what to think and do - nice.

 

 

 

 

[sceadugenga]

You're right about the Pension Bonus Scheme, I've been guilty of using the term incorrectly myself.

What people are generally referring to in terms of portability etc is the Pension supplement.

 

http://guides.dss.gov.au/guide-social-security-law/3/12/1

[Peterw42]

11 minutes ago, ELVIS123456 said:

(but love the free medical system)

Were do you get free medical from, its a specific tax, the Medicare levie. The more you earn the more you pay. It may be free for pensioners etc, but thats because you paid all your working life.

[David Walden]

2 hours ago, ELVIS123456 said:

My understanding of the Pension Bonus Scheme was that it was a payment that was given to people who continued to work past their OAP qualified age, and who did not claim the OAP. It was a bonus for those who continued to work and did not claim the OAP as far as I knew. And I believe that it was stopped a few years ago - although those still on it can stay on it and accrue up to a 5 years payment, which they then claim when they apply for the OAP. 

 

My understanding of the allowable income while still getting the full OAP is $168 f/fnight ($84 a week or $4368 per year).  But I am not sure if it is accumulative or not - meaning if someone can work for a few weeks and earn up to $4368, and not have any affect on their OAP.  I am very interested in knowing more about this for the future Halloween - please let us know how your request to CLink goes. 

  

I was thinking that when I am in Aust in the future (will be living in both countries when OAP approved), I could do a little Uber/Grab driving to pick up a little cash without affecting the OAP.  But if it is not accumulative and I can only earn up to $84 every week (or $168 per fnight) before losing part of the OAP, then it is not worth it at all.

 

Just another way the Govt in Aust have screwed over the people on the OAP.  How the hell can anyone earn an income of only $84 a week - the min wage is about $20 an hour so that equates to working for about 4 hours a week - <deleted>?  Who would go through all the trouble (insurances, compensation, super, payrolls, etc) to hire someone for only 4 hrs a week?  And why would anyone want to work for just a few hours a week - more trouble than it is worth.  Maybe if someone sold stuff on the net or something like that, but why would anyone even do that if they could only earn $84 a week before they lose part of their OAP?  And here is the big thing - you lose $0.50 for every $1 over the $84 a week!!  50% of whatever you earn over $84 is taken off your OAP - <deleted>?  Maybe 10% or even 20% - but 50%? 

 

IMO someone on the OAP should be able to earn up to the tax free threshold, before they then lose 50% in the $1 for every dollar over that amount.  The Govt aint gonna get any tax anyway, so why limit someone on the OAP making a little extra by working/earning? Why force people on the OAP to stay poor??   Aust is a effinn socialist duopoly mascarading as a capitalist democracy - no wonder I hate the place (but love the free medical system).

 

But I must say - we recently moved up north to 'Gods Country' because the weather down south in VIC and ACT was way to cold for my wife's Thai genes (and me too).  People far more relaxed here and no speed cameras everywhere and no road signs telling me what to think and do - nice.

 

 

 

 

Well Elvis123456 and anyone else that likes to know  I drove a school bus in WA. in a country town for 9 years after I received the Australia Aged Pension (and before I claimed the pension).. this is how it worked for me.

The contractor paid a wage to me of about $33 per hour, it varied a bit due to wage increases.  Being married at the time my pension income was $16,000 per year (married rate).  The offset married tax threshold was/is about $60,000

.

  You can use your partners tax free threshold  which I applied for (currently about $35,000 now ) so the wages I received per fortnight was all the $1100 I was paid.  You do have to apply for the "Tax Offset" exemption ( quite simple you just down load the form from the Tax Office) or you can claim it back by putting in a tax return and get it back later.  I have a modest amount of super, and that is not taxable  Being a part time bus driver I worked 38 weeks on and the other 14 weeks off, school holidays, 2 hour in the morning and 2 hours in the afternoon.  Lovely job all the kids just lovely, quiet as mice on the way to school ( don't say anything), very noisy on the way home. didn't bother me a bit about 60 of them.  The only trouble with this is you have to switch off, pity if someone is getting murdered.  Nearly happened a few times. ( could have been me? not so)

 

Without going into all the details my wife and I received about $32,000  gov pension,  I received an extra $24,000 ( did a few extra tour and wedding jobs for the boss)  so that's around $56,000 per year ( all non taxable).  Together with some of the working credits I received due to the 14 weeks that I did not work our joint income was about $53,,000 for the year.  It's over 3 years since I fully retired,  My wife and I live "separate under the one roof" we own jointly.  We both receive a single pension. I live 3 months in Aus and 3 months in Thailand.

 

    It does seem the work bonus credits are only available for people who get paid wages.  If you knew how complicated it is for Centrelink to keep tabs on small contractors, like fortnightly profit and loss statements (can you believe that) and other book keeping requirements, as I did with my "little truck and tractor" business  before driving the school bus you would understand....like after 3 years I was required to submit photo copies of all documents regarding any business activity.  I rolled up at Centrelink and showed  the girl Centrelink's letter, with a smirk on the young ladies face and a nice conversation whilst she talked to me for the next 3 hours photocopying any thing to do with that business,  267 photocopies, everything.  I asked what will happen to them,  she said they are electronically transferred to the department requesting them anyway, these will just go into the shredder in time, no one will ever read them...  you may think this is a joke but no...I rest my case.    And, this is Thailand???

 

Edited April 8, 2018 by David Walden

[BEVUP]

1 hour ago, Peterw42 said:

Were do you get free medical from, its a specific tax, the Medicare levie. The more you earn the more you pay. It may be free for pensioners etc, but thats because you paid all your working life.

How true

People just don't get it, & i've even seen it on the Forum that people from other countries think Auss get medical for free

I've paid thousands each yr for this & very rarely use it. But when i do (once a yr or so ) I still have to pay since it doesn't cover the whole bill.

Then they forced you to pay more - for a basic hospital bed cover roughly $1000 p/y or pay another % of your gross income

I'm sure I paid 3.5% of my gross income last yr - That figure would of gave me 1st class full health ins around the world including America

So to sum things up nothing is for free as we had paid for this service above & beyond our taxes

[halloween]

20 hours ago, ELVIS123456 said:

My understanding of the Pension Bonus Scheme was that it was a payment that was given to people who continued to work past their OAP qualified age, and who did not claim the OAP. It was a bonus for those who continued to work and did not claim the OAP as far as I knew. And I believe that it was stopped a few years ago - although those still on it can stay on it and accrue up to a 5 years payment, which they then claim when they apply for the OAP. 

 

My understanding of the allowable income while still getting the full OAP is $168 f/fnight ($84 a week or $4368 per year).  But I am not sure if it is accumulative or not - meaning if someone can work for a few weeks and earn up to $4368, and not have any affect on their OAP.  I am very interested in knowing more about this for the future Halloween - please let us know how your request to CLink goes. 

  

I was thinking that when I am in Aust in the future (will be living in both countries when OAP approved), I could do a little Uber/Grab driving to pick up a little cash without affecting the OAP.  But if it is not accumulative and I can only earn up to $84 every week (or $168 per fnight) before losing part of the OAP, then it is not worth it at all.

 

Just another way the Govt in Aust have screwed over the people on the OAP.  How the hell can anyone earn an income of only $84 a week - the min wage is about $20 an hour so that equates to working for about 4 hours a week - <deleted>?  Who would go through all the trouble (insurances, compensation, super, payrolls, etc) to hire someone for only 4 hrs a week?  And why would anyone want to work for just a few hours a week - more trouble than it is worth.  Maybe if someone sold stuff on the net or something like that, but why would anyone even do that if they could only earn $84 a week before they lose part of their OAP?  And here is the big thing - you lose $0.50 for every $1 over the $84 a week!!  50% of whatever you earn over $84 is taken off your OAP - <deleted>?  Maybe 10% or even 20% - but 50%? 

 

IMO someone on the OAP should be able to earn up to the tax free threshold, before they then lose 50% in the $1 for every dollar over that amount.  The Govt aint gonna get any tax anyway, so why limit someone on the OAP making a little extra by working/earning? Why force people on the OAP to stay poor??   Aust is a effinn socialist duopoly mascarading as a capitalist democracy - no wonder I hate the place (but love the free medical system).

 

But I must say - we recently moved up north to 'Gods Country' because the weather down south in VIC and ACT was way to cold for my wife's Thai genes (and me too).  People far more relaxed here and no speed cameras everywhere and no road signs telling me what to think and do - nice.

 

 

 

 

Ah crap - I used the wrong term, my apologies. Change pension bonus to work bonus and it will be correct. https://www.humanservices.gov.au/individuals/services/centrelink/work-bonus

 

If you are in Oz and a tax resident you can earn $418/fn (168 + 250) without loss to OAP or paying tax. Even if you leave Oz the 250/fn accumulates to max $6500.

Edited April 8, 2018 by halloween