Dan

Does anyone know if the new investor retirement visa will be
implemented on 1 November 2004?

Dan

Marc C

Dan,

Alan Collet kindly advised us that it had been delayed due to the General Election. If you do a search you might find his message.

Marc

Tony Bryer

In article <[email protected] >, Dan wrote:
    > Does anyone know if the new investor retirement visa will be
    > implemented on 1 November 2004?

"We have been advised that implementation of the new temporary Investor
Retirement visa, which was scheduled to commence on the 1st of November
2004, has been postponed until after the Federal election on the 9th of
October.... Should the Coalition Government be re-elected we anticipate
that the required legislative amendments will be introduced soon after
Election Day, with the introduction of the new visa perhaps on the 1st of
January, 2005."

http://www.gomatilda.com/news/article.cfm?articleid=321

According to another site the present requirement for transferrable assets
of A$870K is to be replaced by

1. Settlement limited to regional or low growth areas of Australia
2. Investment of AUD$500,000 as a designated investment in State/Territory
bonds
3. Evidence of pension or other funds to generate continuing income
4. Settlement funds to purchase a home in regional or low growth area.

which makes the present 410 visa look positively welcoming. I would
welcome someone explaining the logic of these changes to me as (a) AIUI
the number of people who enter Australia on temporary retirement visas is
small - around 1000 ISTR - so the number who go to Sydney and Melbourne is
negligible when compared with the existing population; (b) the problem in
regional areas is one of depopulation and an ageing population; (c) AIUI
in rural areas health services are under pressure; and (d) I would expect
(there may be census figures that prove or disprove this) that the inner
city areas (I would like to retire to Melbourne CBD) have a
disproportionately low number of older people and arguably it would
improve the balance to have more older semi-permanent residents in these
areas rather than just students and those who will move out to the suburbs
as soon as they start families.

I must be missing something here because ISTM that Australia's best
interests are served by encouraging retirees to come with their money and
encouraging them to live out the rest of their life there, preferably
spending all their capital in the process. The A$500K bond rule is nice
short term source of money but once the retiree dies or decides to leave
Australia the money probably leaves the country.

If there is a desire to encourage retirees to settle away from the major
cities then surely it would make more sense to keep the present 410 but
with varying financial thresholds for each state reflecting the costs of
housing and cost of living.

--
Tony Bryer UK

Marc C

Tony,

<<According to another site ........>>

The consensus on this forum is that the new visa will only be a temporary visa. What does the other site think? One agent said that the Howard government wanted to bring in a permanent retirement visa but Labour, who controlled the upper House, vetoed it. Now that they don't, might things change perhaps.........

There are ways that Australia could make a lot of money out of comfortably off retirees if they made the visa permanent.

Regards,
Marc

Tony Bryer

In article <[email protected]> , Marc C
wrote:
    > The consensus on this forum is that the new visa will only be a
    > temporary visa. What does the other site think?

My other quote (I should have cited it) came from
http://www.global9.com.au/ClientSide...asp?iNewsID=43

Alan Collett's site refers to it as being temporary

    > One agent said that the Howard government wanted to bring in a
    > permanent retirement visa but Labour, who controlled the upper
    > House, vetoed it. Now that they don't, might things change
    > perhaps.........

But (and perhaps I'm missing something) that makes it all the more
odd that they are apparently proceeding with changes that make the
retirement visa look totally unattractive as opposed to not very
attractive.

I understand all the arguments about retirees not being a drain on
the Australian taxpayer etc but if I can manage to raise enough to
retire to Australia at 55ish and live as long as my father did I
will be an Australian taxpayer for 32 years and will probably pay
more tax than many Australians. And they're trying to discourage
me!

--
Tony Bryer UK

Alan Collett

I understand your arguments Tony, and they may yet prevail now that the Coalition looks like it has a majority in both Houses of Parliament. However, until we see the actual legislation it is all conjecture as to whether the new visa will be a temporary visa or a permanent visa.

My hunch (and again this is only a guess on my part) is that the new Investor Retiree visa may be a temporary visa for a period (say 2 years), requiring the holder to live in a regional area (similar to the Skilled Independent Regional visa). Once the visaholder has resided in a regional area for two years (say) he or she may then be invited to apply for a permanent residency visa. The underlying principle would be that once a visaholder has settled in a regional area for a period it is improbable that he or she would then change locations.

This said, I would have thought the services in metropolitan areas are better able to deal with the issues relating to those who are older as compared with regional areas (ie the availability of medical care is generally better in or close to the capital cities).

More details on Go Matilda News as soon as I learn of it ...

Best regards.

Marc C

Tony,

Thanks for the link. I agree with you. I would be only too happy to be a higher rate tax payer in Australia if it led to a permanent visa. In fact, my wife would be happy to be obliged to leave her property to the State on her death (assuming I wasn't still in it of course........)

George Lombard

On the whole question of the new retirement investment visa, they're hoping of course that you'll settle in regional areas to boost local economies. As we understand it, the visa will be a state/territory sponsored visa just like SIR. This is from the Minister's announcement in January:

"There is also a new visa for self-funded independent retirees to encourage them to settle in regional areas.

Under this visa, participating state and territory governments will be able to sponsor self-funded retirees settling in regional Australia.

Self-funded retirees provide an opportunity for Australia to benefit both from their capital investment and the money they spend while in Australia."

Cheers,

George Lombard

www.austimmigration.com.au

SarahJW

Hi,

How will the new retirement visa affect those already in Australia on the current retirement visa? Will they still be able to apply for a renewal or will it disappear? My parents are going in on the current retirement visa.. we are hoping to be able to sponsor them to stay permanently once we've been there a couple of years, but I was just wondering what would happen if that's not come through when the initial visa expires.

Hope someone can help.. thanks in advance.

Regards

Sarah

Alan Collett

Without wanting to make myself a hostage to fortune Sarah, I don't see any alteration to the arrangements for those who are already the holders of Retirement visas and who are seeking a renewal of the same.

Best regards.

George Lombard

Hi Sarah,

I think I can go further than Alan on this one. It's inconceivable that DIMIA would prevent current retirement visa holders from rolling those visas over, since in most cases people have brought considerable assets and made considerable personal investment in coming here, as well as continuing to make significant contributions to the Australian economy.

Cheers,

George Lombard

www.austimmigration.com.au

www.austimmigration.com.au

SarahJW

Thanks for your replies Alan and George. I was hoping that was the answer, but just wanted to check so I don't worry about it.

Regards,

Sarah

Tony Bryer

In article <[email protected]> , Alan
Collett wrote:
    > My hunch (and again this is only a guess on my part) is that the
    > new Investor Retiree visa may be a temporary visa for a period
    > (say 2 years), requiring the holder to live in a regional area
    > (similar to the Skilled Independent Regional visa).

That bit I'd grasped.

    > Once the visaholder has resided in a regional area for two years
    > (say) he or she may then be invited to apply for a permanent
    > residency visa.

That does put a bit of a different spin on it - though the word
'may' is slightly worrying. I could survive two years in rural
Victoria, though not I think the rest of my life. But you could be
right: two years of small town life might just quench my desire to
live in the Melbourne CBD - stranger things have happened!

--
Tony Bryer UK