Changes in the tax laws of individual countries do not affect the the Double Taxation Agreements between those countries. Any changes to a DTA must be in agreement with all parties. The Australian DTA has not changed since it was written in 1989 and everything covered in that agreement remain in force today
If it's covered by a DTA it most certainly 100% will prevent double taxation. The whole point of these international treaties is to ensure this doesn't happen. Why bother having them if it's not the case?
I intend switching from non-O to DTV next year, because it's an ideal visa for retirees, with minimal requirements in comparison. I don't think there will be many overstayers on DTV. A simple border bounce gives another 180 days, so why would anyone risk it?
The difference would be so minimal the allowable deduction would cover it. Many people would only be transferring pensions which in most countries would be covered by the DTA as taxable only in the country of receipt
I can't see it. Tens of thousands of retirees use visa agents who openly advertise their corrupt services. Nothing has ever been done by immigration to investigate these services. They're not going to pump man-hours into trying to unveil any "fraudulent" soft power or medical DTV when these people have been issued with a totally legitimate visa by an Embassy
90-day report is just a confirmation of address. Its format hasn't ever changed and it applies equally to all visas, so extremely unlikely immigration will meddle with it. If anything, an in-country extension *might* need 500k funds showing in a Thai bank account, but all this will do is push people to use the border bounce facility