Marisawright

9 hours ago, Adam 005 said:

I should have been clearer in my post.
It’s her sister who’s in Australia. 
...
Being a woman and a lovely forward thinking person she able to see the benefits and deal with the sacrifices and the emotions of the decision far better than me. 
I’m basically and emotional dinosaur . 

If you're an emotional dinosaur, here's another question to think about.   It sounds like you've got no desire to live in Australia, you'd be making the move purely for your wife's sake. You've said nothing about how you would feel about living in a foreign country, thousands of miles from your homeland?      Honestly, it's challenging enough to make the move when you really, really want it.  If you're just doing it to please someone else, you're likely to have a very hard time, and my worry is that you may find yourself stuck in a life of endless homesickness.

As for the kids -- they'll be fine whichever decision you make.  We have families here who love their life in Australia, but equally we've got families who didn't settle in Australia, went home and love their life in the UK, too.   Your kids will have plenty of opportunity to live outside the UK when they're older -- as Australian citizens they'll be free to visit or live here as often and as long as they like.  

3 hours ago, Adam 005 said:

I'll be quick promise,

In a nut shell my wife wants to move over to W/A to be with her family and to give our children the opportunity of living outside the UK.

While I fully agree with her on most fronts I find myself really struggling  with the idea of leaving my parents in the U.K, They are both in good health given their age 76 and 69.

I know ultimately it's down to me to decide but I can't help feeling like it's a awful thing to do. 

It's the curse of being in a 'mixed marriage'.  It's not so much about whether they need someone to look after them, because there are support services, after all.  It's more about their feelings on being separated from children and grandchildren.  However, your wife's parents have just as much right to see their daughter and grandkids, as your parents do.  Just because they've missed out up till now, doesn't mean they're not suffering as a result.  In fact you could argue that it's 'their turn'.    

@Ausvisitor might be able to help.

9 hours ago, Nemesis said:

I was advised to put everything not going in the container (including stuff going as luggage) into one room and just close the door and put up a sign saying Do Not Enter! It worked  

This is common practice and removalists should be used to it HOWEVER you'll get the odd one who barges in without noticing the sign, because they're under pressure.    Therefore I'd suggest two more measures:

1. Take the supervisor to the door before you start, show him the notice and say "don't pack this room".
2. Put a couple of strips of packing tape (or some such) diagonally across the doorway, à la police tape.

11 hours ago, calNgary said:

Why wouldn't it?

Because the population is less than 100,000.  But there you go, my question has resulted in someone helping the OP, so that's all good.

17 hours ago, Kerry E McRae said:

  We need more support services.  I am considering Mackay.  Any suggestions are welcome. 

I'm wondering if Mackay would be big enough to have the kind of support services you're looking for?

45 minutes ago, Gary H said:

Always focused on super, there are other ways to secure income in the future.

..., I understand the advantages for some but for us who tend to bounce about, there are better options.

 

I agree.  Because of the tax advantages, superannuation is the obvious choice for most Aussies.  However for anyone who feels there's even a slight chance they might return to their home country in the future, it's the last thing you should be investing in IMO, due to its lack of flexibility.

5 hours ago, Popee said:

Thanks I never stayed in Australia, just for a couple of weeks to activate it.

Does that matter?

Yes it does, and on paper, you wouldn't stand a chance of getting a RRV.  However, recently, we've seen a lot of people in your situation being successful, so it's definitely worth a try.  

8 hours ago, Worma said:

Thanks for the reply.

I was hoping you weren't going to say that but did figure that would be the answer. Greedy burgers.

It's income. Why would you expect it to get special treatment?   

23 hours ago, FirstWorldProblems said:

One minor correction.  Pensions are funded by NI and general taxation and not NI alone. 
 

But the essence of your post is quite correct - a persons NI contributions are not being invested somewhere in an effort for the fund to grow by the time that person retires. 

...and the essence of my post was that many Brits believe that's exactly how it works (just look at all the furore about the pension age going up, mostly along the lines of "I've paid into NI all my life so I'm entitled to get my money's worth").

41 minutes ago, InnerVoice said:

if you're working in the UK you'll pay a lot more than that in NI contributions - £4,200 based on the current average salary of £35,000/year. And bear in mind that most people pay these contributions for up to 50 years, so what you contributed in 1973 should be worth a lot more in real terms in 2023 if successive governments has managed their finances properly. If they haven't, then you can't really throw it back at the populace for having unrealistic expectations.

I'm just looking at the value of my oh's superannuation.  He was in the public service at the beginning of his career, so had super from the age of about 20.

I'm pretty sure he has contributed more into his super than anyone would've contributed to NI contributions, and I think it's been well-invested.  Yet if his super had been his  ONLY source of all his healthcare throughout his adult life plus his pension till he dies, I don't think it would be enough.  By what magic would NI contributions do better?  And remember, it pays for unemployment benefit as well.

Sure, some people die early, but likewise some people live till 100, or have huge medical bills for a large chunk of their lives.

5 hours ago, InnerVoice said:

Have you forgotten about National Insurance? People contribute all their working lives. 

They do, but remember that National Insurance has to be pay for  medical care, unemployment benefit, maternity leave AND the pension.  Though NI has gone up this year, I think, it's bleeding obvious that it's pathetically inadequate to cover all of those areas.    

When National Insurance was first conceived, most people died by 70, so the pension had to cover less than 5 years.   Medical care was much more basic (no open heart surgery, no MRI scans etc).  Now people can live for 20 years after pension age, and modern healthcare can treat a much wider range of serious illnesses (which makes it more expensive).  Successive governments have been too chicken to increase the NI contributions enough to keep pace, so they would go nowhere near covering that expenditure even if the fund was well managed (which it hasn't been, by all accounts).  However they've let the electorate go on thinking that's exactly what NI does.

The result is that a lot of people my age are up in arms about the pension age being increased, because "We paid for our pension and we're entitled to get that money back".  Well, no, you didn't pay for the pension or anything close to it.  You made a small contribution towards it, that's all.

How small was brought home to me when I decided to pay my missing years of NI contributions.    I paid about 6 years of missing contributions, and I'll get all that money back in only 3 years in increased pension payments. That's bonkers.

48 minutes ago, Blue Manna said:

The problem with the UK is that a lot of people go and see their GP because they are old and lonely. This means that the GPs are rushing through the time wasters and they often miss people who are really sick. Same as you get people in the UK calling the ambulance because they have run out of coffee or nappies or whatever.

People tend not to do this when it costs them money, as in Australia.

Yes, I used to be like @pob and think healthcare should be completely free.  But when we were in Southampton, we both struggled to see a doctor at all, because they were so booked up all the time.    I did get to see a nurse a few times and during the long wait in the waiting room, I was surprised at how many no-shows there were.  Because appointments cost nothing, people wouldn't turn up if they felt better, and didn't bother to cancel.

Same with medications.  Both my sisters (in Scotland) are on regular medication.   They get their prescriptions filled every month, even if they haven't used last month's supply, because it's free. Result -- they both have drawers full of surplus medication.  

I'm still horrified at the awful private system in the US, but I do now see the value of being asked to make a modest payment for medical services, (with a safety net for those who can't afford it, of course).  

1 hour ago, pob said:

I would guess a lot of people compare Australia with where ever they come from.

Of course, that's inevitable when people first migrate. Why would you not compare?    Over time, you either discover that it's swings and roundabouts, and that some comparisons favour your home country and some favour Australia - in which case you settle down.  Or, you keep on comparing and lamenting the things you miss, and that's a big sign that you are never going to settle and you'd be better off going home.

However I think it's worth mentioning that where you live in each country can make a huge difference to your experience.  For instance, I lived in Sydney for over 30 years and loved it -- but when we struck financial trouble, we moved to Melbourne rather than move to the far Western suburbs of Sydney, where I wouldn't live if you paid me.  Another example, when we went back to the UK, we were in Southampton and spent a lot of time in Aberdeen.  I found people far, far more insular than people in Sydney.   I found the medical care in Southampton far worse than in my area of Sydney.  And so on.

1 hour ago, ramot said:

Is that with a seniors card or a concession card? or just because a patient is over a certain age? It only seems to apply to a concession card holder here. eg ia state pension 

Over a certain age.  Other medical professions e.g. physiotherapists seem to require the pension card though.

25 minutes ago, ramot said:

$90 charge from my Dr. on the Sunshine Coast before Medicare rebate

We're fortunate in Melbourne that most GPs offer bulk billing or reduced rates for seniors

2 hours ago, pob said:

Every time we see the doctor it costs us $100

 

Wow, even after your Medicare rebate?  That's ridiculous.  There are still bulk billing GPs in Melbourne and even the doctors who charge, aren't charging as much as that. 

1 hour ago, RubyMonday said:

. I'm sure there will be plenty of tax agents who can do both

You'd be surprised, they're like hen's teeth.  Some pretend they can but very few actually understand how the two systems inter-relate.

1 hour ago, pob said:

My wife got sick and I saw how the healthcare system worked. It was then we realised that Australia as a country would fail us if we ever got sick here.

So would you say it's worse than the NHS?

34 minutes ago, RubyMonday said:

Thank you I had no idea about that, I've requested a quote but imagine it will be quite expensive and may not be worth it for the possible meager reduction in tax. 

How old is the property?  If it's old, and you haven't done any improvements in the last few years, it may not be worth it.  However it's worth noting that the taxman doesn't look at your property's income and expenses in isolation.  On your tax return, you show all your income from all sources, then from that total, you deduct all your allowable expenses from all sources.

When I owned a new property in Sydney, my depreciation allowance was so high, my property expenses wiped out all the tax on my rental income AND a fair chunk of the tax on my salary.

So I'd say, do your research before deciding.

With UK property to think about, I'd be looking for a tax agent (not an accountant, differing thing in Oz, though some people are qualified in both) that knows about both tax regimes. Trying to juggle them separately is too difficult.   @Alan Collett for instance.

15 hours ago, RubyMonday said:

Regardless of if it’s consent to let or not (which I have now on the flat and will have on the house when I leave) I’d still need landlord insurance since I’m still a landlord. So it wouldn’t make a difference really, at least I only need contents on the flat and not buildings as well. I don’t go until July/August next year so plenty of time to sort something out.

At least it'll be tax deductible on your Australian tax. 

Do you understand about claiming depreciation for your property?  It's an important way of reducing your Australian tax if you own a rental property.  You'll need to get a depreciation report done just before you leave for Australia.  It's not easy to find someone in the UK to do one, since it's not a thing there, however I found this company:

https://www.washingtonbrown.com.au/london-tax-depreciation-schedules/

8 hours ago, bearnova64 said:

I will soon be applying for a partner visa and if granted it gives 5 years to make the physical move, but out of interest what reasoning is behind having to make the trip to Australia within the first 12 months to activate the visa?  It seems an odd rule and just involves added expense for the applicant?

For most applicants, it's not an added expense at all, because the great majority make the actual move within the 12 month window.  Most migrants are eager/impatient to make the move once they've made the decision to do so.  By the time their visa is granted, their plans and preparations are already underway, so 12 months is plenty of time to relocate.

The 5 year concession is a safety net for the minority who aren't able to make the move within the normal timeframe.

The explanation given to me was this:  in the past, when there were fewer conditions on visas, it became very common for people to apply for a visa "just in case", especially people from unstable regions.  They had no great desire to live in Australia but saw it as a safe haven if things went wrong in their own country.  That was obviously a great waste of Immigration's time.  Measures like insisting you show up within a year, and make the final commitment within 5 years, are ways of making sure you're not a time-waster.

I have to say, I wonder why you're applying for the partner visa now, when you seem so reluctant to make the move.  Why not wait until you genuinely want to move?  

1 hour ago, InnerVoice said:

Can't you download an app on your Smart TV for the VPN you use, then connect to a UK IP address using that so you wouldn't need to connect your PC?

I appreciate that some older Smart TVs don't support certain apps, but then a easy fix is to buy an Amazon Firestick for $50 because they have all the apps (including the VPN ones) preloaded, and then just run everything off the Firestick.

Is that just an ordinary Firestick set to Australia, or do you need to get one from the UK?

57 minutes ago, unzippy said:

Our smart LG telly went dumb when it realised it was no longer in the UK.  iPlayer, ITV etc stopped working.  YouTube was ok but that's about it.

There are ways around by setting up a vpn specifically for the telly, to trick it that it's back in the UK (https://www.comparitech.com/blog/vpn-privacy/set-up-vpn-smart-tv/)

The easiest fix that doesn't involve buying a new one is using a Chromecast or apple tv to get your content on to the TV.

I must be missing something. When using Chromecast, both the Chromecast device and the casting device have to be using the same data source (in my case, the wifi on my phone).   If I use a VPN on my phone, the Chromecast can't find the wifi so it won't work.  I can't see how to set up a VPN on Chromecast

9 hours ago, RubyMonday said:

For people that are due to emmigrate rather than already settled in Oz.

Just fyi but Nationwide building society are happy for you to keep your account open and make transactions while you live in Australia even as a non UK tax resident. They just request that you update them of your correct address so that they can send any mail and new cards etc out to the right place even to an Australian address. They said there is no guarantees long term but at this time there are no plans to change this policy. On the other hand starling bank said I'd have to close my account as soon as I'm no longer a UK tax resident, I haven't asked Natwest yet. 

There seems to be no consistency.   As per the earlier discussion, there aren't any actual laws preventing British banks from allowing foreign account holders.  It's just that some banks have done their sums, and decided that complying with the rules has become very complicated and expensive, and overseas customers are rarely large enough to be worth the bother.  I do think it's a matter of time before they all work that out, TBH.