An Australian trying to retire in Thailand

[Agent Sumo]

11 minutes ago, bazza40 said:

Try getting health insurance in Thailand when you are over 70. The cost is ruinous, even if you can get it. Any pre-existing conditions will be automatically excluded.

 

Most insurers in most countries do exactly the same. 

[bazza40]

2 minutes ago, Agent Sumo said:

 

Most insurers in most countries do exactly the same. 

Played and missed,straight through to the wicketkeeper.

[aussieinthailand]

9 minutes ago, ozzydom said:

Four pages of fallacy with a few facts thrown in.

Australian pension requirements are simple and easy to follow .

The continual reference to paying taxes is not part of the requirement and is only applicable to the superannuation component.

The simple rule is that you must have been a resident of Oz for minimum ten years during your working age period and a full time resident during the immediate two years at time of application (65th birthday)

Alternatively you can return to Oz on or about your 65th  and reside there for the following two years to obtain portability of pension.

Either way your pension will be paid from your 65th birthday

If after you gain portability you choose to live overseas ,all you lose from your entitlements .are the travel ,allowance,rent assistance phone and electric subsidies and of course after a period your medicare.

The current pension as at 20/03 2016 was $21,225 aud per annum for pensioners living outside Oz.or roughly 45,000 baht per month.

Centrelink pays all costs to transfer into your overseas account.

Bloody brilliant,,,!  

So why the stories "My mate can't get an Aussie pension unless he lives in OZ for 2 years first"?

Are people not being told about the access of portability pension? and therefor think they are being deigned the OZ pension?

The problem is most people have family's here and don't want to separate the family, or the cost to bringing family too OZ for the qualifying 2 years is cost preventative and not always approved by immigration. Why the HELL the government think they can dictate where a person lives to access their pension is offensive in the extreme!!!!!

Guess I have another read on Center link's web site.

[F4UCorsair]

12 minutes ago, aussieinthailand said:

Well aren

 

Well you are a lucky one indeed,  you have paid large amounts in tax,   your partner pay's over $150,000 in tax per year, ok cool, then by those numbers mate you and your partner were on some fairly bloody good coin yeah, had a fairly comfortable life, traveled, etc.

So yu'p you should have been able to afford to provide for your future after retirement, fair call?  Now for most of us already retired or close to retirement didn't quite have the money you and your partner proclaim to have, and more likely to have been in the low to middle in-come bracket and so worked hard for it.

"We all know were it's at though it usually depends on from were you start."  example, not having to worry how much the grocery's cost.

Some of us started without the advantages others had,  money for Uni, others had to stop their education because they like to eat and have a roof over their heads so higher education was not possible therefor a high income also not possible, and as a result self funded retirement also not possible, which I fell into the last category.  Then the government started the 9% compulsory super anuation, great a little something for the future. So in your mind, you have paid in a 'LOT" so you should get back a "LOT"  But hey you already have self funded your retirement so no need to pull on the government's purse lucky you, that's not to say you didn't work hard or make sacrifices either, we all have. But as I said most of us didn't make a six figure salary so most of us will want to have access to a pension as promised by government and the amount in taxes paid will not be eaten up in a few years as you claim. Considering the coast of a loaf of bread and a bottle of milk 30 years ago and the average wage 30 years ago and the value of the dollar now yeah man it's relative, I wonder if you ever had to worry about the cost of the grocery's?  

In my case never sick so only time in hospital was at birth,  then public school to which books uniforms excursions were not tax payer funded so a minimum of tax spent on me as I had no choice but to leave school so I and family could eat and pay the rent, but hey

I have paid my taxes and paid the politicians their HIGH salary's with added perc's and access to super funds that the average citizen is deigned.  How many X poly's out there that spend years over sea living and still have access to their tax payer funded perc's?

So yu'p  

It's OFFENSIVE!! that those that had the luck to have access to a higher education and a higher income turn around and belittle those that did not have the advantages as they did and claiming they should not have a pension for the years of taxes they paid in. Disgusting...

 

 

Well my friend, let me tell you this.   I was thrown out of school by my old man because he didn't want to keep me for another couple of years, at barely 14 years old, with only a 10th grade education.  He was a violent alcoholic, and my mother not much better, just no violence.  There was never enough money for anything other than booze and cigarettes, and I worked after school so that I could own a bike, and had to buy my own clothes or wear threadbare hand me downs.

 

After a couple of dead end jobs, I joined the RAAF as a clerk, moved to being a radio/electronics technician, and did nine years there.  I then moved from job to job, to fund my study, and matriculated by correspondence and night schooling.  At one stage I worked four jobs, including office cleaning, gardening, aircraft loader, and cook at the drive in theatre, to fund further education and did a few subjects at university before funding myself into learning to fly.  These days that training, at an integrated school, is well over $100,000, so relatively, even back then, it cost a lot of money.  From memory, it cost $31.00 an hour solo, and now it's $200.00. When I left the Air Force, I was earning less than $80.00 a week.  

 

After a few years of flying charter, and in third level airlines, piston and turboprop aircraft, from 4 seats up to about 30 seats, I was fortunate enough to score an airline job, flew for a number of different international airlines on contract, and finished a 25+ year career, retired at 57, after having flown a good number of heavy jets, in various countries, finishing in Japan, earning megabucks.  

 

Some would say I'e been lucky, but luck is no more than the crossroads of preparation and opportunity, and with the right preparation, I was on the spot to take advantage of the opportunities.

 

In between all that, I raised two kids, and lost one to cancer, but there are no favorites when it comes to that bitch of a disease.  It takes anyone, from babies to very old people.  We all face the same odds, just as we do with other factors throughout life.

 

Don't tell me that I had a privileged upbringing, with the benefit of higher education, because it was anything but, more like an upbringing of deprivation, violence and fear, day in, day out.  I know what it's like to be hungry, and cold, and live in fear of the next bashing by my old man.

 

The thing I've noticed throughout life is that the harder I've worked, the luckier I've become.  It's not rocket science, but a very simple formula.  Enterprise is recognized by employers, and every job I've ever had, I've given it everything I could possibly give.  I've always tried to be the best I could possibly be, nothing my old man was, and everything he wasn't.  That's resulted in recognition of my efforts, and upward movement.

 

I do not, and will not, belittle those who are less fortunate, but I will say that many/most of them are reluctant to get off their ar$es and work as I did to achieve success.  I didn't want to live, nor did I want my kids to live, as I had to as a kid, so I did something about it. Not everybody can be CEO of BHP, but there's nothing to stop everybody from having a go, and a consequence will be that they will find themselves way further up the ladder than they otherwise would have, and financially better off.

 

Genuine disadvantage is something that we, as a society, should cater for, but a lack of motivation is not a genuine disadvantage. Bludging is a choice, and it should not be the responsibility of the rest of society to fund such people's lifestyles.  If I was unemployed, I wouldn't be expecting anybody to find me a job.  I'd be knocking on doors, asking to mow lawns, clear rubbish, and anything else I could do to earn some money.

 

This is not bragging.  It's explaining to you that not everybody who has succeeded in life was born with a silver spoon in his mouth, and that by sheer hard work, the spoils are there for the taking.  It's just a matter of how hungry you are to succeed.

 

I'm sick to death of being taxed on the sliding scale we have in Australia.   Flat rate is fair, but because of the unique geography and lack of population in Australia, not feasible.  Somebody earning $20,000 a year pays no tax.  Somebody earning $500,000 pays half that including the public healthcare levy.  People earning a lot are less likely to use the public health care system, so are again funding the low income earners, paying many times more, and using the system less.  

 

The only people who want egalitarianism are those on the bottom of the stack.

[aussieinthailand]

20 minutes ago, mydee said:

Higher education is not always a matter of luck some of us had to do it and our final secondary school at night. so your assumptions are pretty offensive too.

Head's up mydee,  I never claimed Higher education is  always a matter of luck, that would be why I used the word some of us,,, ok mate.

And some of us had to work a second night shift job to pay the bills so night school was not possible..

"so your assumptions are pretty offensive too"    BTW did you know that the word "too" is for,   ie;   A person is going "too" a place and not how you have used it...

Dammmm,  that night school education is a cracker.  But If ya can't dazzle em with brains baffle em with Bulls__t.

[simple1]

13 minutes ago, mydee said:

But when those receiving Government handouts are doing better than those who prepared for their own retirement then something is seriously wrong. For example to provide the equivalent of an old age pension to someone aged 65 could cost  nearly $1 million dollars.

Then to deny the pension to someone who has been an Australian resident all their life and moved overseas to retire is dastardly.

 

The average superannuation savings for retirees in 2013/2014 was AUD292k for men and AUD138k for women. Accordingly if one has no other financial income,  it's self evident currently the large majority of Australians are heavily dependent on the Age Pension. Details available at the AFSA website

 

Age Pension portability at retirement is not denied if one follows the rules.

[Peterw42]

Are people aware of this online calculator to determine resident , non resisdent status .

 

https://www.ato.gov.au/Individuals/International-tax-for-individuals/Work-out-your-tax-residency/Residency-tests/

 

I always thought if you qualify as a resident for taxation purposes, then you are a resident for pension purposees.

[Agent Sumo]

19 minutes ago, bazza40 said:

Played and missed,straight through to the wicketkeeper.

 

So surely the answer is to reside in a country in which healthcare is provided by the state where pre-existing conditions are no impediment to treatment

[F4UCorsair]

6 hours ago, lvr181 said:

" the treasurer has said the 'age of entitlement' is finished,"  Politicians entitlements ARE NEVER finished.

I have to ask "Were you a politician?"

 

No I wasn't, and I condemn them for their greedy self interest, but they are a law and breed unto themselves.   

[bazza40]

9 minutes ago, aussieinthailand said:

Bloody brilliant,,,!  

So why the stories "My mate can't get an Aussie pension unless he lives in OZ for 2 years first"?

Are people not being told about the access of portability pension? and therefor think they are being deigned the OZ pension?

The problem is most people have family's here and don't want to separate the family, or the cost to bringing family too OZ for the qualifying 2 years is cost preventative and not always approved by immigration. Why the HELL the government think they can dictate where a person lives to access their pension is offensive in the extreme!!!!!

Guess I have another read on Center link's web site.

The OP's friend is not being denied the pension.He's being told he has to be resident in Australia for two years to get it if he applies for it outside Australia when he reaches the pension age. Unfair yes.

People going to a Centrelink office should ask for an appointment with a Financial Services Officer. These will give free, unbiased, accurate advice based on your circumstances. The rank and file at Centrelink are far less experienced, and in any case are not allowed to give advice.

[F4UCorsair]

12 minutes ago, aussieinthailand said:

Head's up mydee,  I never claimed Higher education is  always a matter of luck, that would be why I used the word some of us,,, ok mate.

And some of us had to work a second night shift job to pay the bills so night school was not possible..

"so your assumptions are pretty offensive too"    BTW did you know that the word "too" is for,   ie;   A person is going "too" a place and not how you have used it...

Dammmm,  that night school education is a cracker.  But If ya can't dazzle em with brains baffle em with Bulls__t.

 

aussieinthailand, mydee has the use of 'too' right.  You go to a place.   I am going too.

[Billy Bloggs]

17 hours ago, georgemandm said:

It is you <deleted> , you have no idea what you are saying what the hell has a pension got to do with Australia not being a great place.

it is to stop people  routine the  System and it had been happening for the last 40 years.

so lean why it is like it before you get on here and bring me it to brain dead .

melbourne is the most  Livable city in the world.

Sorry most of what you said doesnt make sense, but I think what you tried to say in one part was, rorting the system, Im sorry but why are people who have worked hard and paid taxes for many years(over 45 in my case) being penalised for what people are doing to rort the system. By the way there maybe a loop hole that I may try and exploit, but no not telling I dont want it closed, will let ya know when the time comes. Oh and by the way Im still an Australian for tax purposes.

[simple1]

8 minutes ago, bazza40 said:

The OP's friend is not being denied the pension.He's being told he has to be resident in Australia for two years to get it if he applies for it outside Australia when he reaches the pension age. Unfair yes.

<snip>

 

You cannot apply for Age Pension offshore, you must be resident in Oz.

[ozzydom]

1 minute ago, simple1 said:

 

You cannot apply for Age Pension offshore, you must be resident in Oz.

With one exception,if you are /were living overseas on a disability pension,it is automatically changed to OAP when you turn 65.

[aussieinthailand]

32 minutes ago, F4UCorsair said:

 

 

Well my friend, let me tell you this.   I was thrown out of school by my old man because he didn't want to keep me for another couple of years, at barely 14 years old, with only a 10th grade education.  He was a violent alcoholic, and my mother not much better, just no violence.  There was never enough money for anything other than booze and cigarettes, and I worked after school so that I could own a bike, and had to buy my own clothes or wear threadbare hand me downs.

 

After a couple of dead end jobs, I joined the RAAF as a clerk, moved to being a radio/electronics technician, and did nine years there.  I then moved from job to job, to fund my study, and matriculated by correspondence and night schooling.  At one stage I worked four jobs, including office cleaning, gardening, aircraft loader, and cook at the drive in theatre, to fund further education and did a few subjects at university before funding myself into learning to fly.  These days that training, at an integrated school, is well over $100,000, so relatively, even back then, it cost a lot of money.  From memory, it cost $31.00 an hour solo, and now it's $200.00. When I left the Air Force, I was earning less than $80.00 a week.  

 

After a few years of flying charter, and in third level airlines, piston and turboprop aircraft, from 4 seats up to about 30 seats, I was fortunate enough to score an airline job, flew for a number of different international airlines on contract, and finished a 25+ year career, retired at 57, after having flown a good number of heavy jets, in various countries, finishing in Japan, earning megabucks.  

 

Some would say I'e been lucky, but luck is no more than the crossroads of preparation and opportunity, and with the right preparation, I was on the spot to take advantage of the opportunities.

 

In between all that, I raised two kids, and lost one to cancer, but there are no favorites when it comes to that bitch of a disease.  It takes anyone, from babies to very old people.  We all face the same odds, just as we do with other factors throughout life.

 

Don't tell me that I had a privileged upbringing, with the benefit of higher education, because it was anything but, more like an upbringing of deprivation, violence and fear, day in, day out.  I know what it's like to be hungry, and cold, and live in fear of the next bashing by my old man.

 

The thing I've noticed throughout life is that the harder I've worked, the luckier I've become.  It's not rocket science, but a very simple formula.  Enterprise is recognized by employers, and every job I've ever had, I've given it everything I could possibly give.  I've always tried to be the best I could possibly be, nothing my old man was, and everything he wasn't.  That's resulted in recognition of my efforts, and upward movement.

 

I do not, and will not, belittle those who are less fortunate, but I will say that many/most of them are reluctant to get off their ar$es and work as I did to achieve success.  I didn't want to live, nor did I want my kids to live, as I had to as a kid, so I did something about it. Not everybody can be CEO of BHP, but there's nothing to stop everybody from having a go, and a consequence will be that they will find themselves way further up the ladder than they otherwise would have, and financially better off.

 

Genuine disadvantage is something that we, as a society, should cater for, but a lack of motivation is not a genuine disadvantage. Bludging is a choice, and it should not be the responsibility of the rest of society to fund such people's lifestyles.  If I was unemployed, I wouldn't be expecting anybody to find me a job.  I'd be knocking on doors, asking to mow lawns, clear rubbish, and anything else I could do to earn some money.

 

This is not bragging.  It's explaining to you that not everybody who has succeeded in life was born with a silver spoon in his mouth, and that by sheer hard work, the spoils are there for the taking.  It's just a matter of how hungry you are to succeed.

 

I'm sick to death of being taxed on the sliding scale we have in Australia.   Flat rate is fair, but because of the unique geography and lack of population in Australia, not feasible.  Somebody earning $20,000 a year pays no tax.  Somebody earning $500,000 pays half that including the public healthcare levy.  People earning a lot are less likely to use the public health care system, so are again funding the low income earners, paying many times more, and using the system less.  

 

The only people who want egalitarianism are those on the bottom of the stack.

First of all, I am sorry for your loss, and yeah cancer is a mongrel.

Seems we have had similar starts in life, with violence in the home, but my mother was in on the bashings, but it's not a competition.

had to leave school year 9 cause some one needed to buy the food and pay the rent.

Then there's the day's of no breakfast, lunch, and a big bowl of fresh air for dinner on many many occasions.

Then for school and a the hand me down school uniform full of holes, and the paper round after school followed by washing a few car's after the paper round. weekend's mowing lawns gardening , cleaning rubbish cutting and stacking fire wood. the dead end job's for a few years, sounds pretty similar huh?

filled out paper work to join the Army, and my Girl friend at the time fell pregnant and wanted to move back too WA close to parents, so I went with her.  Now back then being a  "Victorian was not EZ in WA" but if your worked hard enough you were ok.

So large unemployment in OZ at the time so worked saw mills again, minimum wage and night shift in a bakery, and weekend work.

raised a family then I was lucky enough to land a job in underground mining, Fly in fly out two weeks on six days off, out so I sat in some of those third rate planes you talk of.  S kid's privet education, family privet health insurance so again no tax burden. And I'm a wear of the tax sliding scale of earning a higher income  and the Medi-care levy. Followed by separation of family divorce.  So paid my taxes almost no pull on the public purse, so yeah I think I paid my fair share without taking almost anything back so now, yu'p I like some of that $ back as was guaranteed by government when they took my money/taxes...

 

[georgemandm]

1 hour ago, bazza40 said:

George, I'm ex-Melbourne. From May through to September, Melbourne is unliveable with the rain and wind-chill.

As for Thai pussy, I'd much rather look at it than what you see in overwhelming numbers at any supermarket or shopping mall in Melbourne. Fat ugly slugs, even the young ones. Ugh.

I can live in Melbourne in very modest circumstances with my assets and a part-pension.Why should I, when I live very well here?

 

  If you think Melbourne is unliveable then you are one in 5 million because the rest of us love it so the numbers out way your way of thinking. Plus try and buy a home in Melbourne now most homes in the millions. That would say you are very , very wrong would it not about Melbourne.

so if you have no home back in Australia , would be because you are one who give it all up for thai pussy , you not understand do you,  thai pussy is great but I would not give up my whole life for it like you .

if you say you live well here it would mean you not live great so I would  rather live great then well .

i was not saying thai pussy not great get it I was saying f??? Wits give up their whole life to come here and lose the lot .

[georgemandm]

59 minutes ago, Billy Bloggs said:

Sorry most of what you said doesnt make sense, but I think what you tried to say in one part was, rorting the system, Im sorry but why are people who have worked hard and paid taxes for many years(over 45 in my case) being penalised for what people are doing to rort the system. By the way there maybe a loop hole that I may try and exploit, but no not telling I dont want it closed, will let ya know when the time comes. Oh and by the way Im still an Australian for tax purposes.

There you go you think you can rort the system.

now you know why the government are trying to stop it because people like you try to do it .

i have paid my taxes all my life but I don't get on here and complain like some of them .

i work hard to get to were I am in life and no help from no one and not want a pension.

lots of people in their life wast there money and then complain when it gets to pension age , that the government not help them out and you know what I think about people like that , like a thai would say 

som Nom nar .

[smotherb]

3 hours ago, georgemandm said:

I do live there and love the place.

not care about the rest of Australia just Melbourne.

you see I can live in Melbourne and thailand not like some  of the men here who sell the lot to come to live in thailand for the thai pussy .

Then lose the lot when it all turns to S??? And have no home to go back to .

and I not need a government pension to live out my life .

 

You didn't even duck, did you?  Do you really not understand? You called me a deleted name for a post which suggested to enjoy the amenities of Oz, you needed to live there. Now you say the same--go figure. 

 

 

[Bob9]

21 hours ago, manfredtillmann said:

some of us won't even get a pension living in australia because we have done a little too well, working, paying taxes, supporting bludgers, useless politicians and an overstaffed public service.

but taking the government to court? no chance, none, nil! particularly not if it hits the public purse.

 

did you follow the court case of the south australian whine grower a few years ago attempting to outlaw compulsory voting? if you thought banana courts only exist in thailand...

 

Cant disagree - never easy to change rules that will cost the Govt. But, there have been many 'informed' challenges that have succeeded over the years in changing Govt rules and regulations.  It is usually done to correct thjngs done by the public servants (in this case CLink) to achieve the desired outcomes of the politicians.

Although the movie 'Castle' makes it look like a big thing, the Govt has been forced to change things - like the Tribunal arrangements (their rulings were declared invalid as they were not a Court).  But when they do change - they always do it 'quietly'.  

The CLink rules were changed to stop Greeks (and others) claiming the pension after having moved back to their homeland. They achieved that by stating you must be resident in Australia at the time you apply. The definition of 'resident' was later further extended to mean you couldn't come back for a month and apply, and then go back again to your homeland again and still get the age pension. Then even later the definition was extended to 2 years resident after returning - because many Greeks etc. came and stayed with their family for 3-6 months and then went back with the pension. And all through that time, through international discussions and agreements, the qualifying period was increased and increased. Now it is 40 years, but before that is was 35 and 30 and 20 and 10. 

The whole reason for all those changes, was to stop citizens and residents of another country going back 'home' after living working in Australia, and keeping their pension payments.  Fair enough.   But stopping Aussie men (mainly) who have retired early (before pension age) and are living overseas as 'guests' in another country, was not what it was about (as declared and internationally agreed). Fair enough if I have migrated to Thailand (etc), but I have not and cannot and am just a visitor who can be made to leave at any moment. I am a citizen/resident of only one country - Australia - and I can re-enter Australia at any time for any reason. I therefore still legally live there, because I have no legal right to live anywhere else in the world.  Every other country (those included in the international social security agreement and those who are not - like Thailand) do not allow me to enter and stay without being accepted as a guest (Visa + extensions to stay etc etc).

The reason this needs a High Court hearing is because when this type of argument is put before the SSAT (Tribunal) they only have the powers to determine if policy and procedures were followed - they cannot  force the Govt to change those policies and procedures unless a clear breach of law has occurred. And this would not be a full court case type hearing as in the movie - it would just be a panel hearing to establish if the Govt (as represented by CLink) has breached its own and any international obligations regarding the rights of a citizen to receive social security payments.

Any retired QCs out there?  I am speaking tongue in cheek of course .............. but if one is listening...............

 

[Bob9]

21 hours ago, yaagjon said:

You should have read your link before typing, as you contradict the link several times!!!!!

Good luck anyway.

Probably right - typing long statements not my forte

Thanks - but it is not just for me - this is something for all Aussie expats (who qualify on age, working life, assets and income).

[Bob9]

20 hours ago, 1337markus said:

Totally correct. I am much the same age lived here 10 years. Last time in Perth ( 2015) went to CentreLink who are the controlling body and everything you say is true. She also said its 2 years before you can apply after living in Australia and there is NO guarantee it will be approved. The pension is paid on a ratio of years worked in Australia and you have paid your ATO dues; example someone who works 30 years could get up to 100% pension; another who works 3 years maybe 5%.  Then the pension is 2 components; the second one is more about getting pensioner rates for travel and utilities in country when you fly out of Australia  it stops immediately ( no big deal). The money component was OK but now they also measure time overseas and there is a time that flags to stop the pension ( you need to check this she suggested 6 weeks) and on your return you are responsible to report and re activate it. So bottom line they have us snookered.

Just to clarify - you will get the pension paid while in Australia - but you will not be approved to go overseas and keep it.  And the CLink interpretation of the rules about what it takes to be able to do that are extremely 'vague'.  What they do is use (abuse) the resident requirement, and they can claim you had no intention of staying and can deny you taking the pension overseas. However, once you have 'qualified' under the 2 year probabtion, they cannot deny you taking it and keeping it when you go overseas. Whats the bet they make it 3 or 4 years in the future??

 

 

[oxo1947]

And don't mention you are living with a Thai girl........ your pension will be reduced, (no that isn't a joke)

If you do happen to have a child (children ) tell them that you have parted from your wife-- take the child with you, go on single parent benefit---more money than the dole, rent assistance etc-also benefits in it for the child (pre schooling)  etc , you can get to go back to Thailand more often as its part of the agreement that she (ex) gets to see the child..... also her visiting you (visiting her child) should make a visa easier. I have a friend who has gone back to Perth like this----he said in his last mail that he found the CES (or whatever they are called now) was very helpful in this situation.

[Bob9]

19 hours ago, maoro2013 said:

 

Yes should have known all this before. I am in  the same boat never thought that an Australian pension could be denied me given the hundreds of thousands of tax they managed to collect from me

 

I will collect the pension and it is possible to leave Australia for fairly extended periods certainly more than six weeks at which time a couple of subsidies are cut from the pen a ion payment.

 

The two year thing is totally absurd and has actually been overturned by tha Administrative Appeals Tribunal on a number of occasions although I  cannot find any references to these to enable me to evaluate the precedents.in my case a literal following of the rules would split up my family among other complications.

It also erks me that immigrants qualify for a full pension with far less working years than an Australian.

 

The whole thing sucks.

Probably the reason SSAT (AAT) over ruled was because in each situation, the person denied put forward reasons they should not have been denied, and the CLink advocate could not refudiate those reasons.  But be assured - for every winner at AAT there are many losers.

 

I should elaborate on this - because I can hear the questions about why for some and not for others.  

 

Best way to explain is to say that for the ATO (Tax) the rules are detailed and clear and apply to everyone. And when they are changed, they apply to everyone, unless specific exclusions are made.  EG. The rules regarding CGT (Capital Gains Tax) exceptions; and if they ever abolished CGT exceptions (as Labor will do next time they get into power).  

However, for Welfare Payments the rules are not as defined and they are literally open to interpretation on a case by case basis (by the CLink Officers).

The ATO will take your hypothetical situation and will give you a ruling in advance.

CLink cannot and will not deal with hypotheticals - they will only rule when you apply - they will only answer specific questions and they will not provide 'formal advice'.

There are thosuands of professional advisers about ATO rules and regs and compliance - and they will give you their opinion/advice (for a fee).

There are NO professional welfare advisers - only guides.

 

[Bob9]

19 hours ago, norbra said:

If your friend is entitled to the aged pension,he will be paid this immediately on registering with Centrelink. He must have an Australian address and family living there to qualify.

He is then required to remain in Australia for 2 years,if he were to leave the country,even for a short holiday the 2 year count would start again on his return.On completionof this 2 years of residence he will have gained portability of pension status,the payments are subject to the number of years of working life (35 years for full pension) he had in Australia,

Hope this helps with concerns of waiting 2 years for the pension to be paid. 

It would only restart (2 years) if he took an extended period overseas. I understand the general rule is up to 6 weeks - but they have allowed longer (best to tell them why).

[Bob9]

20 hours ago, F4UCorsair said:

 

 

Never mind that he never contributed to a personal pension fund and now expects the government to keep him for the rest of his life, on an increasing pension, never contributing another cent via GST, never contributing to keeping another Australian in a job through spending locally, because it will all be spent out of the country.

 

If it's a dog food pension, why would he be interested?

 

The rate of tax is high, but not as high as many countries, and how many countries will provide you with free medical services, hip replacement $25,000, heart surgery $60,000, etc.  My partner pays over $150,000 in tax a year, and the only benefit she will ever receive is medication for an ongoing serious condition that costs the taxpayer $3000 a month, and for which she pays $36.00 a month, but even a person paying NO tax is entitled.  My view on that is that the more one contributes, the more one is entitled to in government services.  If you contribute little, you receive little....what's unfair about that?

 

Japan is an advanced, civilized country, but when I was working there, one of my colleagues was telling me that every yen her family members generated went to keeping her  brother, who had cancer, alive, with no government assistance.

 

Your friend may not be a social burden on the Australian government right now, but how many TV members, by their own admissions here on these pages,  go back to their home countries in their old age for free/low cost medical services, after contributing nothing of their taxpayer funded pension for years in Thailand....too many.

 

Paying tax should not be an entitlement to a pension for life.  Tax receipts are for running the country, the costs of government.

 

I paid a LOT more tax than most during my working life, provided for myself, never drawn a cent in government funding, and will never be entitled to anything in my retirement.  Comparing with somebody who earned an average income, based on relative contributions, I should be entitled to a pension of $100,000 pa.

 

I find it offensive that people believe that because they paid tax they are entitled to a pension, dog food pension though it may be, for the rest of their lives.  It's conceivable that because somebody has worked in a menial job for a lifetime, paid little tax, and the effects of inflation, they will receive, via a pension, EVERY  cent they ever contributed in the first few years of retirement, and be kept by the next generation/s of taxpayers.

 

That is OFFENSIVE!!  It's why the treasurer has said the 'age of entitlement' is finished, as it should be.

 

1337markus, they have you snookered just as those drawing a pension and living overseas have future generations of taxpayers snookered.

 

You have the right to that opinion. But you claim it to be THE correct opinion, based upon some facts you provided.  There are facts you have not provided that put your claim to be correct in doubt.  I will not elaborate much to you - I am busy trying to give accurate answers to those asking positive questions.

The number one cost to Govt is HEALTH CARE - not just hospitals - medications and GPs and physio etc etc etc.  and most pensioners cost a LOT to maintain.  Not all go back to Aust when they are very old - many stay here and die here (and other countries). Even if they got the full pension, the difference between that and the savings to the Govt budget by not being there, is POSITIVE by a long way.  The pittance they would have paid in GST is insignificant in comparison to their health care costs to the Govt.   

 

[Seizetheday]

20 hours ago, georgemandm said:

You pay taxes to run the country not to get a pension.

you pay super to get money when you  retire and if you are not that smart to put your money in to super then you will get a hand out .

but the government do it like this because people have been ripping the  System off for years so that is why he will have to go back and sorry for your friend .

but people should not get on here and blame the Australia government for try to stop the ones who don't put in and take the money out after just 4 or 10 years of work in Australia.

I disagree, as the owner of a business who employed people and paid well over $200,000 in tax for several years, why shouldn't I be entitled to the pension. I've paid more than my fair share of tax.

[Bob9]

14 hours ago, alofthailand said:

just live there with an address and bills but don't stay there. You do not have to present yourself at the police station every month do you? Be resident but travel extensively. Many brits return to UK and have a UK address to keep their NHS treatment

 

Yep - a good start for those under 65+ who can afford/organise that.  Use a relative's address and keep bank accounts and licence lodge tax returns etc etc etc. Keep up your residency while holidaying in Thailand and move house every year or so - even stay in another country for a while. But, you will still need to show them (CLink Officers) that you have 'moved' back before you apply - and being there for 2 years before application means it is automatic. The longer you are away, the more they need to be convinced - that is why it is best to stay living there and be on holidays overseas (a lot). Not an option for all, but it can make the process go smoother. They will get your passport records when you apply - they will know how long you have been overseas and where. 

 

[Bob9]

3 hours ago, bazza40 said:

Played and missed,straight through to the wicketkeeper.

I reckon he nicked it !!!

[Bob9]

3 hours ago, Peterw42 said:

Are people aware of this online calculator to determine resident , non resisdent status .

 

https://www.ato.gov.au/Individuals/International-tax-for-individuals/Work-out-your-tax-residency/Residency-tests/

 

I always thought if you qualify as a resident for taxation purposes, then you are a resident for pension purposees.

Not so my friend.  ATO and CLink use different rules and policies. You can be one and not the other. ATO's rules are easy and clear - they even provide an online guide.  CLink's is not - they reserve their decision until after you apply.

[Bob9]

3 hours ago, bazza40 said:

The OP's friend is not being denied the pension.He's being told he has to be resident in Australia for two years to get it if he applies for it outside Australia when he reaches the pension age. Unfair yes.

People going to a Centrelink office should ask for an appointment with a Financial Services Officer. These will give free, unbiased, accurate advice based on your circumstances. The rank and file at Centrelink are far less experienced, and in any case are not allowed to give advice.

True. But be careful. You have to provide full personal details, and they keep it all on file. The problem is that you have 'options' that they do not and will not and cannot provide to you. They will only answer specific questions - they will not provide open formal advice. Go see an accountant/financial adviser (ATO stuff) and they will keep your personal circumstances private, and they will give you advice which invariabley includes "you should think about doing this and doing that and not doing those". And when things change (rules regs interpretations) they will contact you and advise you what to do to alleviate any negative impacts.  CLink will not provide advice - they answer questions - if you dont know what questions to ask they will not answer (and will not tell you to ask). And if things change in 6mths or a year/s, they will not tell you their previous 'information' is now wrong.