https://www.news.com.au/finance/economy/federal-budget/find-out-if-you-come-out-in-front-with-the-2026-budget-calculator/news-story/994151745121d4b5033a0cbede4d034f


Unbelievable  Im left to do this and if I am now captain?

Where is my captain wages?

Honestly.

Am I the only one who contributes anything remotely relevant and up to date to this forum?

Pfft.


 

I don’t think it’s a good budget nor a bad budget.

As I don’t believe anything an Australian politician says I doubt if 3% of what they are saying will actually occur.

I am still upset . I out of all of us are left to start this thread!

What, you’re all too busy calling each other’s childish insults to take an interest in the major political announcement of the year?

Clowns!

you halfwit:

https://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1778574741

Television and radio is the appropriate place for a thread to discuss the federal government budget?


Only if you’re a full wit!

Come on.

This is the biggest thing the federal government will do this year!

I’m  on the fence with it?

I think it’s pretty average in all respects but so is the quality of the federal political talent pool.

I see little but band aid solutions

OK



https://budget.gov.au/content/04-tax-reform.htm



Capital gains tax

The Government will replace the 50 per cent Capital Gains Tax (CGT) discount with a discount based on inflation and introduce a minimum 30 per cent tax on gains from 1 July 2027.

This reform means that investors will only pay tax on their real capital gain, restoring the original intent of the CGT arrangements. The CGT reforms will only apply to gains arising after 1 July 2027. Investors in new builds will be able to choose the 50 per cent CGT discount or the new arrangements.

Negative gearing

The Government will limit negative gearing to new builds from 1 July 2027, to focus tax support on new supply.

Existing arrangements will remain unchanged for all properties held before Budget night, and investors who buy new builds will still be able to deduct losses from other income.

Investors who buy established housing after Budget night will still be able to deduct losses against residential property income. They will be able to carry forward unused losses to future years but won’t be able to deduct them against other income like wages.

Fairer tax arrangements for discretionary trusts

The Government will introduce a minimum tax of 30 per cent on discretionary trusts from 1 July 2028 with some exceptions.

Rollover relief will be provided for three years from 1 July 2027 to assist small businesses and others that wish to restructure.

Poll added.

( the stupid thread in television and wireless radio devices doesn’t even have a poll).

Seriously I can’t believe I don’t have a bad back because I do all the heavy lifting around this forum!

I don’t fully understand the tax pay off for small business?

It seems to allow small business a chance to defer their tax payments and in some cases even get a refund from the treasury.

If I understand it correctly that’s a good thing?

The removal of tax rebates for private health insurers is capable of sending private hospitals broke.

It also sounds wonderful to remove 75 thousand houses from rental investments and have them put into the market for owners occupied ownership.


Where exactly are the 75 k families currently renting these properties going to go and live?

Daves2017 wrote on May 12^th, 2026 at 10:55pm:

The removal of tax rebates for private health insurers is capable of sending private hospitals broke. It also sounds wonderful to remove 75 thousand houses from rental investments and have them put into the market for owners occupied ownership. Where exactly are the 75 k families currently renting these properties going to go and live?

It's a drop in the ocean:

We import more than 500,000 people per year.

"As of June 2025, the estimated population of Canberra (including the whole of the Australian Capital Territory) was 484,630."

We import more people than that every year.

It’s an interesting budget and I feel  it’s not the answer for Australian people.

However I also feel it’s much better than what came before under the LNP.

This is a Ai quote-

“ Based on the 2026–27 Federal Budget, older Australians are seeing a mix of targeted support and increased costs, creating a varied outcome depending on their financial situation and health needs.Key Impacts on the Elderly in the 2026 Budget:Higher Health Costs: More than 3 million Australians over 65 (including 400,000 pensioners) with private health insurance will be hit by a reduction in rebates. This change is expected to increase premiums for those aged 65–69, and potentially even more for those 70+, with many expected to pay between \(\$226\) and \(\$255\) more a year.Aged Care Funding: The government is investing \(\$3.7\) billion more over four years into residential aged care and in-home services. This includes \(5,000\) new residential beds each year and more than \(\$200\) million for dementia services.Support at Home Changes: Following a backlash, the government has moved to cover the cost of essential services like showering and dressing, preventing a potential \(\$50/\text{hour}\) cost for in-home care, though co-payments for non-clinical care will continue.Energy and Cost-of-Living Relief: A \(150\) energy bill rebate is extended until the end of 2025, and there is a further 12-month freeze on deeming rates for pensioners until June 30, 2025.Tax Changes: Many seniors over 50 will benefit from broader tax cuts, including a lowering of the 19% rate to 16% and the 32.5% rate to 30%, which is expected to benefit 4.6 million people.Waitlist Concerns: National Seniors Australia expressed disappointment that, despite the funding increases, there were no extra funds for home care packages to reduce the 12-18 month waitlist, aiming for a 3-month waitlist by early 2027.Overall, while the budget provides cost-of-living relief and invests in the long-term sustainability of aged care, it simultaneously places a heavier financial burden on those with private health insurance.”

I understand the lower standard and higher costs involved in running a private hospital however if you close them down the public sector will be completely overwhelmed and it’s busting at the seams.


Defence seems a big winner from this budget but whether that money will go to Trumps America on imaginary submarines or spent locally to develop a military industrial complex within Australia remains to be seen.

I feel the budget solves nothing but I strongly believe that very soon our politicians will vote themselves a  pay rise after being given “ independent “ pfft, advice they are worth more 😩

Albo has a great lifestyle.    :)


https://www.ozpolitic.com/album/forum-attachments/Albo_s_lifestyle.jpg

I do not have a problem with negative gearing as such.  I've benefited from it in the past over funding a live theatre performance where I incurred a loss, so I think that in a genuine business intended to EARN money and be taxed on that, it is only fair that losses be carried forward.

What I do have a problem with is that serial housing buying is not a business designed to actually earn money on paper - so the accountants say every year - though the owners seem to live well.  I've said it before - nobody goes into a business to lose money... if they lose money on paper evey year there is something wrong... no business could continue under those conditions, and so what that means is that there is too much 'wriggle room' in the style of 'negative gearing' accorded to serial house purchasing (not the only accounting paradise)..

Back up a step - NOBODY gains instant 'equity' from buying one investment property...equity is developed over time - so this madness of people literally buying one house on top of equity in one just bought is - madness.  The banks do this for one reason - they fully expect - with compliant governments and many elected etc in on the same racket - that policies will continue that will inevitably make the value of a house higher and higher.... two reasons if you allow that the banks take the cream off any mortgage in the early years... so they cannot lose as long as a government persists with mass immigration raising demand, with encouraging 'investment' in existing housing, and this at a time when production of NEW housing is at what must be an all-time low.

Let's get real - many times I've driven past the ever-expanding devlopments near Maitland, NSW - and wonder where TF the people come from to live there, let alone pay the mortgage or the rent, given the slackness of jobs in such areas.  NOBODY is going to hop on a train at East Maitland and travel to Sydney every day to go to work to pay those bills... and Sydney (etc) is rapidly running out of space to build more and more developments that - infrastructure wise - are left out in the boonies, with not that many local jobs at all.

Hence the inevitable invasion of the Southern Highlands - as I predicted - the Sydney-Canberra Corridor with lots of open land and few real mountains.  Look at a map of Sydney and environs sometime.

So - where are all the viable homes within cannon shot of work going to be built? Unless you want to live in a block of units skyscraper built on the landfill of what used to be toxic Homebush Bay and environs... where are you going to live, develop a HOME, and raise a family - without spending a couple of million dollars that most can never afford at a grand a week or so?

Recently I applied for a field manager job during the Census - $42 an hour casual rate... lets say 40 hours a week....$1600 p.w. or so before tax will not pay you a mortgage in Sydney.

NO public servant I know makes that pitiful amount a week.... although ASIO's startup pay was about that... $82k or so p.a.

Incomes for most v costs of living and actually getting ahead by working for it are way out of synch - and this budget - a prediction once more, of possible future events - is nowhere near the answer.

What is required is ACTION - starting with chopping mass immigration and stabilising costs of living and prospering for Australians, then cleaning out the stables of the undesirables, then cutting out all the silly feministed ideas of being sweet to every arsehole at the expense of our society and culture, then splashing money around like blood at a Hamas invasion on 'social science' madness and 'commissions' to dictate to us how to think, then re-arranging the false ideas of the profit vultures....... then we take back the farm from the foreign parasites...

Way back Gough Whitlam's government fell over the sum of $4 Bn to 'buy back ownership of resources and convert them into a sovereign fund for all Australians owned and operated by Australians'... 

Now shockingly - Howard's stolen 'future fund for the few' is at $335 Bn - and royalties are running at about $125 Bn annually - chicken feed - and AI says it's more like $27Bn... FFS... see the issue here?  ONE resource parasite vulture in a tax haven would make that a year... EASILY.

Does anyone else see the imbalances here in this  Feudal state?

My limited research- google.

Telling me the very meh budget will continue to fund the 42 billion blowout of x labor  Malcom Turnbull in the snowy 2.0 budget but has canned the 45 billion budget blowout for the half finished inland rail project.
Ok so we can either pump water up a hill or transport our farmers produce from one side of the country to the other not only taking trucks of our roads but making our farm produce more affordable for both export and actually Australian people!

The fact that the farmers might actually make a small profit isn’t important as any farm of value is owned by overseas investors.

We need inland rail for the future.

Pumping water up hill can wait.

Also everyone involved in the costing of both projects should be blindfolded and shot

Albo and Charmer are simply treading water with this budget.

Huge reform?

lol.

If they and the journalists who talked this up should be ashamed.

So, what’s it mean? If I pay for health insurance, is the rebate getting lowered or cut out? Meaning I pay more?
And what was that about more bulk billing doctors?
There was a few around in past, now there’s SFA! Which is why we don’t go to doctor as much because of out of pocket expenses.

It seems we are safe from changes to our current investment/rental properties and keep the 50% CGT as existing properties are grandfathered. I was worried and if there were changes was thinking of selling within next financial year otherwise!

I’m still trying to get my head around it all, and was waiting for more detailed reports …. I’m supposed to be on a short holiday here!  ;D I’ve decided changing the name of Whitsundays to Wetsundays! Nothing worse than getting contrast photos from my kids showing Melbourne looking sunny and glorious whilst we wear raincoats  ::)

It was mentioned in budget about funds against violence towards women.
Also a ban against foreign investors.
And some future reassurance with fuel … well who’s silly for closure of what we had!
Lots of regret there since Hormuz strife I bet!
And something about higher tax on our gas export? Well about time instead of virtually giving it away!

https://vt.tiktok.com/ZS9ESPuu9/

Team Albos budget was absolutely perfect for the times , thank god the grown ups are in charge

This budget is abysmal for the rental market. Property investors - mums and dads - have been selling up in droves ahead of the budget and numerous property market experts predict that it will become an avalanche of investors selling up because they stand to lose too much. That will mean less rental properties available in an already very tight market and this will cause rents to skyrocket as demand accelerates while supply dwindles. For many years, Labor promised not to touch negative gearing. Now, after mismanaging the budget for years under Albo, they're saying they have to take drastic action. It's the incompetence of Albo and Chalmers that has seen inflation soaring along with national debt, as Labor just can't stop spending money it doesn't have. Economists all over the country have been begging Labor to reduce spending, to no avail. Just goes to prove that Labor has no idea when it comes to governing.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-05-12/federal-budget-generational-equality-young-australians-housing/106670168


"Properties currently being negatively geared can still be negatively geared. This is thanks to the practice of "grandfathering" — a budgetary practice in which persons currently benefiting from a scheme are allowed to continue benefiting, in order to avoid mass panic and/or systems collapse. 'Grandfathering' is a term absolutely crying out for a rebranding, by the way. And not just because in the context of this "intergenerational justice" budget, it sounds a lot like making an exception for Grandpa and his 15 blocks of flats ."

It's a good budget, closes tax loopholes the rich have used unethically for decades

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-05-12/why-chalmers-reined-in-the-property-tax-lurks/106671254



Without the grandfathering, the political backlash would have been more severe, given the 1.2 million negatively geared property households.

It also would have had the potential to send property prices into a sharp decline.

While most first home buyers would welcome a sharp drop, it could have caused some issues with a real estate-obsessed banking system.

The mooted changes are likely to have only a modest impact in the early years and gradually increase as older investors sell.

"a real estate-obsessed banking system."


Chalmers is protecting the Banks -

he doesn't care about young people paying rent.    ::)

Bobby. wrote on May 12^th, 2026 at 11:01pm:

Daves2017 wrote on May 12th, 2026 at 10:55pm: The removal of tax rebates for private health insurers is capable of sending private hospitals broke. It also sounds wonderful to remove 75 thousand houses from rental investments and have them put into the market for owners occupied ownership. Where exactly are the 75 k families currently renting these properties going to go and live? It's a drop in the ocean: We import more than 500,000 people per year. "As of June 2025, the estimated population of Canberra (including the whole of the Australian Capital Territory) was 484,630." We import more people than that every year.

mass immigration is the problem.

It has not been addressed.

LNP never again wrote on May 13^th, 2026 at 7:18am:

Team Albos budget was absolutely perfect for the times , thank god the grown ups are in charge

yes they "saved" millions and spent millions more than the savings. Bebt went up despite the protestations.

So what was the difference for the capital gains tax 6 months ago and now? What actually changed in that period?

Sprintcyclist wrote on May 13^th, 2026 at 11:21am:

It's a good budget, closes tax loopholes the rich have used unethically for decades

You mean for the mum and dad investors that want to generate wealth with one rental property? How dare they?

Labor do not want anyone to aspire to wealth.

Bobby. wrote on May 13^th, 2026 at 12:07pm:

Bobby. wrote on May 12th, 2026 at 11:01pm: Daves2017 wrote on May 12th, 2026 at 10:55pm: The removal of tax rebates for private health insurers is capable of sending private hospitals broke. It also sounds wonderful to remove 75 thousand houses from rental investments and have them put into the market for owners occupied ownership. Where exactly are the 75 k families currently renting these properties going to go and live? It's a drop in the ocean: We import more than 500,000 people per year. "As of June 2025, the estimated population of Canberra (including the whole of the Australian Capital Territory) was 484,630." We import more people than that every year. mass immigration is the problem. It has not been addressed.

“ Guess what’s going to happen to our population in the next four years. Right now we have about 26 million people living in Australia, maybe closer to 27 million.

“It’s rising to almost 30 million people within four years. Almost half a million are planned to be coming to Victoria.

“The city of Geelong, I think, has about 250,000 people. So in four years’ time, we will have population equivalent to two more Geelongs.



“Are we going to build two more Geelongs to house them all? No, of course we’re not. So the reason we are not going to see intergenerational fairness, the reason we are not going to suddenly see first home buyers able to afford a home is primarily this — our population is still rising dramatically.”

“ news ltd.

This is the issue facing Australian people.

Importantly we are using our immigration policy to make up for the complete failure of higher education in this country over decades.

We can’t provide our own doctors, nurses or teachers.

We can’t even provide truck drivers!

So rather than address the issues with our education system let’s just import a solution?

There is nothing groundbreaking in this budget. Despite its media hype.

There are no major reforms or big ticket items.

They have overspent and simply tinkered around to make rise tax’s and pretend  they haven’t.

We need real reform and solutions.
Not more taxes and more spending.

Have issues with things like more money squandered on never never nuke subs. Otherwise overall, not bad.

Bobby. wrote on May 13^th, 2026 at 12:07pm:

Bobby. wrote on May 12th, 2026 at 11:01pm: Daves2017 wrote on May 12th, 2026 at 10:55pm: The removal of tax rebates for private health insurers is capable of sending private hospitals broke. It also sounds wonderful to remove 75 thousand houses from rental investments and have them put into the market for owners occupied ownership. Where exactly are the 75 k families currently renting these properties going to go and live? It's a drop in the ocean: We import more than 500,000 people per year. "As of June 2025, the estimated population of Canberra (including the whole of the Australian Capital Territory) was 484,630." We import more people than that every year. mass immigration is the problem. It has not been addressed.

Yes we need an off-shore solution and more lies about children being thrown overboard ?

What a terrible budget. It unfairly targets older Australians who struggle and are disadvantaged more than enough as it is. They just lost one hell of a lot of votes. It's a shame that the liberals are so disgusting.

When the answer is that there is no answer it is awful. Should I vote Fred Flinstone or Bugs Bunny in 28 ?

This is a typical miserable nasty liberal party move done by a miserable nasty Labor party.

I voted bad - it should have been terrible.

Dnarever wrote on May 13^th, 2026 at 3:30pm:

Bobby. wrote on May 13th, 2026 at 12:07pm: Bobby. wrote on May 12th, 2026 at 11:01pm: Daves2017 wrote on May 12th, 2026 at 10:55pm: The removal of tax rebates for private health insurers is capable of sending private hospitals broke. It also sounds wonderful to remove 75 thousand houses from rental investments and have them put into the market for owners occupied ownership. Where exactly are the 75 k families currently renting these properties going to go and live? It's a drop in the ocean: We import more than 500,000 people per year. "As of June 2025, the estimated population of Canberra (including the whole of the Australian Capital Territory) was 484,630." We import more people than that every year. mass immigration is the problem. It has not been addressed. Yes we need an off-shore solution and more lies about children being thrown overboard ?

Grasshopper - you must learn to differentiate between asylum seekers and immigrants... I'd rather we cut mass immigration out and look at the refugee claimants first.

The policy is bad for the housing market - so much so that Labor have to throw more money at it to prop it up:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-05-13/how-budget-tax-changes-will-affect-you-cgt-negative-gearing/106674212


Quote:

Treasury expects the policies will overall reduce housing supply by 35,000, but Labor's other investments in housing in this budget will add 65,000 new homes, with the budget expecting a net increase of 30,000 homes.

Even with the added handouts for the building industry, rents will still go up:


Quote:

And the budget expects house price growth would be 2 percentage points slower than otherwise, and that rents would increase by about $2 per week.

So much for helping battlers with the "cost of living crisis".

Anyone know if there are changes to negative gearing for other types of investments?

Gee, what a surprise.

https://x.com/purplepingers/status/2054410707702067520

(May need to click the little speaker icon at the bottom to hear it).


Quote:

Landlords saying the quiet part out loud

And encouraged by scumbag real estate agents, no doubt.

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on May 13^th, 2026 at 4:13pm:

Dnarever wrote on May 13th, 2026 at 3:30pm: Bobby. wrote on May 13th, 2026 at 12:07pm: Bobby. wrote on May 12th, 2026 at 11:01pm: Daves2017 wrote on May 12th, 2026 at 10:55pm: The removal of tax rebates for private health insurers is capable of sending private hospitals broke. It also sounds wonderful to remove 75 thousand houses from rental investments and have them put into the market for owners occupied ownership. Where exactly are the 75 k families currently renting these properties going to go and live? It's a drop in the ocean: We import more than 500,000 people per year. "As of June 2025, the estimated population of Canberra (including the whole of the Australian Capital Territory) was 484,630." We import more people than that every year. mass immigration is the problem. It has not been addressed. Yes we need an off-shore solution and more lies about children being thrown overboard ? Grasshopper - (1) you must learn to differentiate between asylum seekers and immigrants... (2) I'd rather we cut mass immigration out and look at the refugee claimants first.

Yes, and yes.

Carl D wrote on May 13^th, 2026 at 5:20pm:

Gee, what a surprise. https://x.com/purplepingers/status/2054410707702067520 (May need to click the little speaker icon at the bottom to hear it). Quote: Landlords saying the quiet part out loud And encouraged by scumbag real estate agents, no doubt.

"scumbag" is redundant.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGm267O04a8

greggerypeccary wrote on May 13^th, 2026 at 5:25pm:

Carl D wrote on May 13th, 2026 at 5:20pm: Gee, what a surprise. https://x.com/purplepingers/status/2054410707702067520 (May need to click the little speaker icon at the bottom to hear it). Quote: Landlords saying the quiet part out loud And encouraged by scumbag real estate agents, no doubt. "scumbag" is redundant. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGm267O04a8

;D

I like one of the comments to the link in my last post:


Quote:

sunset vibes @gonebymorn 1h Replying to @purplepingers "we're gonna have to increase rent" you were gonna do it regardless you s--t  c---s. landlords really are the scum of this country May 13, 2026 · 6:17 AM UTC

Yes. Yes they are. After real estate agents, of course.

I'd even go so far as to say used car salesmen are more honest and trustworthy.

Daves2017 wrote on May 13^th, 2026 at 2:24pm:

Bobby. wrote on May 13th, 2026 at 12:07pm: mass immigration is the problem. It has not been addressed. “ Guess what’s going to happen to our population in the next four years. Right now we have about 26 million people living in Australia, maybe closer to 27 million. “It’s rising to almost 30 million people within four years. Almost half a million are planned to be coming to Victoria. “The city of Geelong, I think, has about 250,000 people. So in four years’ time, we will have population equivalent to two more Geelongs. “Are we going to build two more Geelongs to house them all? No, of course we’re not. So the reason we are not going to see intergenerational fairness, the reason we are not going to suddenly see first home buyers able to afford a home is primarily this — our population is still rising dramatically.” “ news ltd. This is the issue facing Australian people. Importantly we are using our immigration policy to make up for the complete failure of higher education in this country over decades. We can’t provide our own doctors, nurses or teachers. We can’t even provide truck drivers! So rather than address the issues with our education system let’s just import a solution? There is nothing groundbreaking in this budget. Despite its media hype. There are no major reforms or big ticket items. They have overspent and simply tinkered around to make rise tax’s and pretend  they haven’t. We need real reform and solutions. Not more taxes and more spending.

https://m3.gab.com/media_attachments/51/2e/bb/512ebb9d05e282d951923cc46ed2e900.jpg

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on May 13^th, 2026 at 4:13pm:

Dnarever wrote on May 13th, 2026 at 3:30pm: Bobby. wrote on May 13th, 2026 at 12:07pm: Bobby. wrote on May 12th, 2026 at 11:01pm: Daves2017 wrote on May 12th, 2026 at 10:55pm: The removal of tax rebates for private health insurers is capable of sending private hospitals broke. It also sounds wonderful to remove 75 thousand houses from rental investments and have them put into the market for owners occupied ownership. Where exactly are the 75 k families currently renting these properties going to go and live? It's a drop in the ocean: We import more than 500,000 people per year. "As of June 2025, the estimated population of Canberra (including the whole of the Australian Capital Territory) was 484,630." We import more people than that every year. mass immigration is the problem. It has not been addressed. Yes we need an off-shore solution and more lies about children being thrown overboard ? Grasshopper - you must learn to differentiate between asylum seekers and immigrants... I'd rather we cut mass immigration out and look at the refugee claimants first.

Do you think the conservatives differentiate. To them the difference is tinted people entering Australia the how is not relivant.

There is no problem with the true business concept of gearing losses - posting them against next year or so - HOWEVER - this serial housing grab apparently NEVER shows a real profit - which I find amazing - given that a house bought when the price was $250k is now worth about $1.5m and consequently the RENT has sky rocketed as well!
So clearly there are far too many concessions in accounting for those who engage in serial housing grabbing...
On top of that – 'investment in housing' is engaged in BECAUSE it literally pays for itself without apparently providing any income to the buyer – who still somehow manages to live like royalty – so the decision is simple:-
Either this is a failed business plan that incurs endless costs and zero profits (and therefore must be entitled to concessional capital gains, right?) - in which case it should be cancelled forthwith as being non-viable and a drain on the treasury; OR it is a viable business plan that offers excellent remuneration – in which case – where are the taxes?
On top of that – it has failed to provide the claimed benefits – of creating NEW housing tracts (where TF are they going to put those in the Sydney Basin anyway other than the Sydney-Canberra Corridor and filling up the limited non-mountain land along the Sydney-Newcastle Corridor?) - and so its claimed intent has proven to be false – therefore it is time to abandon it and enforce focus on NEW and VIABLE housing.
To do that latter requires INFRASTRUCTURE – and I have offered plans for many things including the Trans Australia Rail to connect East and West Coasts and connect resources that I say should be extracted by Australians with manufacturing that should be done by Australians... along with safe and reliable power etc.
This government ABANDONS infrastructure projects as 'too costly' – now HTF do they imagine Australia was built? On long term planning and costing over DECADES and not months – and a steady growth in real everything for all.
THERE are your jobs; there are your future generational benefits; there is your answer to a growing population; and there is the future of an Australia that would be the envy of the world..

biggest government spending to GDP ratio in history.

big government is not what people who value "personal responsibility" would ever want

we prefer to stand on our own 2 feet.

but i suppose it is popular with the "takers"

https://www.marketindex.com.au/news/what-the-hell-just-happened-to-cba

Negative gearing on established residential property will be scrapped from 1 July 2027
for properties purchased after 12 May 2026.

The 50% CGT discount will also be replaced from 1 July 2027 with cost base indexation
plus a 30% minimum tax rate on capital gains for individuals, trusts and partnerships.

It doesn't seem possible for the words Commonwealth Bank (ASX: CBA) and
"down 10%" to fit in one sentence, but they just did.

aquascoot wrote on May 13^th, 2026 at 6:53pm:

biggest government spending to GDP ratio in history. big government is not what people who value "personal responsibility" would ever want we prefer to stand on our own 2 feet. but i suppose it is popular with the "takers"

Feb 23, 2026

Mike Newman explains that Australia now employs more public servants per capita than
any other country in the world,
raising serious questions about economic sustainability and accountability
as living standards tighten and government payrolls continue to expand.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aO3Fsyuty-g

“ The 2026-27 Federal Budget delivered on May 12, 2026, did not project an immediate surplus, despite narrowing the deficit. While, according to CommBank analysis, this budget sets a more realistic path back to a balanced budget, it is not anticipated until 2034-35, relying heavily on NDIS savings.”

“ AI


Looks like the NDIS is one of our biggest problems!

I thought Bill Shorten said he had fixed all the rorts?

Tony Burqa  didn’t get the email?

aquascoot wrote on May 13^th, 2026 at 6:53pm:

biggest government spending to GDP ratio in history. big government is not what people who value "personal responsibility" would ever want we prefer to stand on our own 2 feet. but i suppose it is popular with the "takers"

Both the ABS and OECD say that this information is incorrect by a large margin. Australia by their numbers are that the Government employment is below the world average. They say that the problem is that the numbers used by this group included a very broad definition that captured many catagories of privet employment as being government. Things like private companies with a gov contract, gov supported non profit organisations etc - they basically have catagorized anything non market as being a government service. Things like private education disability care and lots of other things. This interview seems more based on political position than factual information.

Dnarever wrote on May 13^th, 2026 at 9:08pm:

aquascoot wrote on May 13th, 2026 at 6:53pm: biggest government spending to GDP ratio in history. big government is not what people who value "personal responsibility" would ever want we prefer to stand on our own 2 feet. but i suppose it is popular with the "takers" Both the ABS and OECD say that this information is incorrect by a large margin. Australia by their numbers are that the Government employment is below the world average. They say that the problem is that the numbers used by this group included a very broad definition that captured many catagories of privet employment as being government. Things like private companies with a gov contract, gov supported non profit organisations etc - they basically have catagorized anything non market as being a government service. Things like private education disability care and lots of other things. This interview seems more based on political position than factual information.

No -

Mike Newman explains that Australia now employs more public servants per capita than
any other country in the world.

At least Albo and Gomer exempted pensioners from the changes to CGT at the outset, rather than a hasty change after announcing the change. (As Bill Shorten had to do after the aborted Franking Credits fiasco.)

Small fry to the budget overall as most pensioners would have to have a modest portfolio anyway, else their assets would take them off the pension.

I wonder if there will be any "walk back" if rents really do skyrocket?

Captain Nemo wrote on May 13^th, 2026 at 10:16pm:

At least Albo and Gomer exempted pensioners from the changes to CGT at the outset, rather than a hasty change after announcing the change. (As Bill Shorten had to do after the aborted Franking Credits fiasco.) Small fry to the budget overall as most pensioners would have to have a modest portfolio anyway, else their assets would take them off the pension. I wonder if there will be any "walk back" if rents really do skyrocket?

Nahh - higher rents are baked in.



Jump to 8:25

Politicians don't care about you at all,  at all,  at all:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-o_XCDTyB4

https://www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/politics/cant-get-around-it-its-a-death-tax-treasurer-jim-chalmers-accused-of-hiding-death-duties-in-budget/news-story/109a134424e2de2f9e8c1f1a008475f0


Jim Chalmers has been accused of burying a hidden “death duty” in the budget
despite taking inheritance taxes off the table minutes after his speech on Tuesday.

his budget imposed a minimum 30 per cent tax rate on income generated by inherited assets

Wow, what a surprise. Not.

https://forums.whirlpool.net.au/thread/90x1w0z4?p=530#r10599


Quote:

Today I have been sent multiple messages from REAs all with much the same core concept, it's time to raise rents as much as possible. 1 person can't move a market but the government just unified and incentivised every IP owner to get in front of the change. Who could have possibly seen this coming.

Real estate agents doing what they're best at as usual - being scumbags (oh, sorry - that should be  c***s) and forcing rents and house prices higher and higher. Time for a big crackdown on them, I reckon.

And... here's the 'awkward' question the real estate agents hoped no one would ask:

https://forums.whirlpool.net.au/thread/90x1w0z4?p=532#r10623


Quote:

What am I missing , get in front of what change all existing IP is grandfathered for negative gearing so why is there a need to increase rents other than pure greed and ability to go “oh it wasn’t me it was Albo”

Bingo! Pure greed. As always with things like this.

So let's recap.

The budget -

Is going to repeal the pre-1985 assets safety net for CGT
Is going to repeal the 50% discount on CGT
Is going to initiate indexation for CGT (start date not included) ;)
Is going to tax trusts at 30%, which is what it does now, but the CGT foregone discounts will increase the pot, hugely.
Is going to implement death duties by stealth, if not by name, with beneficiaries liable for 30% tax if a testamentary trust is a discretionary trust.

These ans other things will of course depend on the final legislative wording. ::)

lee wrote on May 16^th, 2026 at 1:24pm:

So let's recap. The budget - Is going to repeal the pre-1985 assets safety net for CGT Is going to repeal the 50% discount on CGT Is going to initiate indexation for CGT (start date not included) ;) Is going to tax trusts at 30%, which is what it does now, but the CGT foregone discounts will increase the pot, hugely. Is going to implement death duties by stealth, if not by name, with beneficiaries liable for 30% tax if a testamentary trust is a discretionary trust. These ans other things will of course depend on the final legislative wording. ::)

lee wrote on May 16^th, 2026 at 1:39pm:

https://i.postimg.cc/QMdNd2t4/Screenshot-2026-05-16-065321.png

Imagine if they didn't buy the nuclear submarines.  Which all started under the coalition government.  Now how much was it again?.   :(   

whiteknight wrote on May 16^th, 2026 at 3:35pm:

Imagine if they didn't buy the nuclear submarines.

Imagine if we didn't have a defence force. ::)

Yes but we do have a defence force, but do we need nuclear submarines?.   :(   

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on May 13^th, 2026 at 12:30am:

What is required is ACTION - starting with chopping mass immigration and stabilising costs of living and prospering for Australians,

OK - good start, now let's see if you can identify how to achieve that, after limiting immigration to match house builds - Taylor's  ONE good policy among all the ideological nonsense re taxation.

How do you stabilize c-o-l and achieve prosperity for all Australians?

Over to you.....



Quote:

Way back Gough Whitlam's government fell over the sum of $4 Bn to 'buy back ownership of resources and convert them into a sovereign fund for all Australians owned and operated by Australians'...

Interestingly, Saudi Arabia and Qatar became prosperous by buying back their own resources from foreign-owned companies; Oz should do the same with its vast reserves of 'NW-shelf' gas.

lee wrote on May 16^th, 2026 at 1:24pm:

So let's recap. The budget - Is going to repeal the pre-1985 assets safety net for CGT Is going to repeal the 50% discount on CGT Is going to initiate indexation for CGT (start date not included) ;) Is going to tax trusts at 30%, which is what it does now, but the CGT foregone discounts will increase the pot, hugely. Is going to implement death duties by stealth, if not by name, with beneficiaries liable for 30% tax if a testamentary trust is a discretionary trust. These ans other things will of course depend on the final legislative wording. ::)

Yes, so the eternal fights over tax continue, while democracies are foundering around the world.

The alternative:

https://ellenbrown.com/2026/05/11/the-abundance-paradigm-why-ai-forces-a-rethinking-of-money-itself-part-1/

THE ABUNDANCE PARADIGM: WHY AI FORCES A RETHINKING OF MONEY ITSELF — PART 1

and

https://publicmoneypublicgood.net/

Note: public money, not 'taxpayer money'; the disputes re taxation among 'experts' must cease, if we are to safely house everyone regardless of income.   

AI forces a re-think?  AI does nothing beyond what has been programmed. AI does not think for itself. ::)

Ah! The good old "Australian Way" strikes again.

This mould-ridden rental was on the market for $900 a week. Then Jim Chalmers got up to deliver his 'housing' Budget - and the rent shot up by a staggering $450 OVERNIGHT


Quote:

A Sydney rental property with mouldy carpets and walls saw its advertised rent suddenly increase by $450 a week after the Federal Budget was revealed. Treasurer Jim Chalmers announced landmark reforms to property taxes in the Budget on Tuesday, including major changes to negative gearing. Landlords were previously able to offset investment losses against their income, sometimes pushing them into lower tax brackets. Under the reforms, anyone who buys property after Budget night will not be able to claim these deductions. Investors who owned property before May 12 are exempt and can still negatively gear investments. Treasury said the reform will see rents rise by $2 per week, on average.

"$2 per week, on average"  ;D


Quote:

HOME 288 real estate agent Nancy Deng told the Daily Mail the Lindfield property has now been removed from the rental market, but she didn't know why.

Yeah, I wonder why?


Quote:

Ms Deng said renovations had triggered the dramatic rent rise. 'The owner has renovated,' she said on Friday. 'I don't know what the renovations were.'

Perhaps you should stop counting your steadily increasing commission and get your lazy @ss out of the office and take a look?

And, I'm betting there's many, many more dumps like that.

Oh, and...

Revealed: The FURIOUS groupchat messages of angry landlords plotting to make renters pay more after Labor’s Budget blow


Quote:

Wealthy landlords have vowed to raise rents for struggling tenants after the Budget's sweeping changes to property taxes, even if the reforms don't affect them.

Greed, greed, greed. As usual. All while lots of people (including whole families) are living on the streets and in cars, etc.

Disgraceful stuff.

---

I just don’t believe that this country is going anywhere.

Attacking people who are trying to get ahead via investments or running a small business doesn’t make sense to myself.

Not everyone wants to be a public servant but more than half the workforce in Australia are.

We need to promote independent business and importantly local manufacturers.

Even if it cost myself a little more.

I see no alternative in anal Taylor.

It saddens me but I understand the rise of one nation.

A economy built around the public service is a economy built on as a house of cards?

Newspoll: Jim Chalmers and Anthony Albanese’s budget flops with every generation of voters

A special post-budget Newspoll reveals Jim Chalmers has handed down the most unpopular budget since 1993 and eclipsed the visceral reaction to Joe Hockey’s austerity budget of 2014.
Geoff Chambers

https://i.imgur.com/NQ2ycTd.jpeg

Jim Chalmers and Anthony ­Albanese’s big-taxing budget has been rated the worst for the economy since 1993, with younger Australians unconvinced that Labor’s new measures will reduce inflation or deliver on ­intergenerational equity and housing.

A special post-budget News­poll commissioned by The Australian – which includes core budget questions that have been asked over decades – shows voters believe this year’s budget will have a more savage impact than Joe Hockey’s controversial austerity drive in 2014.

Despite more Australians ­believing last week’s budget will be bad for the economy and make them worse off, Labor’s primary vote remained static at 31 per cent, with the Coalition dropping a point to 20 per cent and One Nation jumping from 24 per cent to 27 per cent following David Farley’s victory in the Farrer by-election.

As the Prime Minister and the Treasurer sell the budget as the nation’s best opportunity to solve the housing crisis, News­poll reveals 47 per cent of Australians believe the “budget is driving a wedge between younger and older generations”, and 60 per cent think Labor’s housing measures are “a step in the wrong direction” or “will make no difference”.

After the Treasurer last week used his budget to break election promises and crack down on negative gearing, capital gains tax discounts and trusts, Dr Chalmers and Mr Albanese will travel the nation this week to sell one of the most poorly received budget in nearly 33 years.

The Newspoll, conducted ­between Thursday and Sunday, found 47 per cent of voters ­believe the budget will be bad for the Australian economy compared with 22 per cent who said it would be good.

The minus 25 net approval rating for Dr Chalmers’ fifth budget compares with the minus nine rating that was recorded following the Abbott government’s controversial austerity budget (39 per cent good versus 48 per cent bad) in 2014.

The 1993 budget handed down by the Keating government is considered the worst in Newspoll history, after Paul Keating broke core election promises headlined by abandoning the infamous “L-A-W” tax cuts and increasing taxes.

That Labor budget, prepared by then-treasurer John Dawkins, received a record minus 42 ranking, with 62 per cent saying it would be bad for the economy compared with 20 per cent who said it would be good.

Newspoll, which included a sample size of 1252 voters, revealed there was no cohort across all demographics, including among Labor voters, where more people expected to be better off than worse off in the wake of Dr Chalmers’ budget.

More than half of Australians (52 per cent) expect to be personally worse off as a result of the budget, while just 11 per cent ­expect to be better off and 37 per cent expect to be neither better nor worse off. Despite the Prime Minister supporting blanket grandfathering across tax changes, 67 per cent of people who own investment properties said they would be worse off.

In a concerning trend for the government, only 10 per cent of renters expect to be better off compared with 44 per cent who believe they will be worse off and 46 per cent who think the budget will make no difference.

After Angus Taylor used his budget-in-reply speech on Thursday to set up a war between the Coalition and Labor over tax cuts, the Newspoll found 39 per cent of voters believed the Coalition would have delivered a better budget compared with 47 per cent who said it wouldn’t, which is almost identical to the result recorded by Peter Dutton’s opposition following last year’s pre-election budget.

As Mr Albanese and Mr Taylor embark on campaign-style tours of the country to sell their competing economic manifestos, the Newspoll revealed deep concerns over the budget dividing the community, increasing inflation, failing to reverse the housing crisis and driving-up taxes.

More women believe the budget is driving a wedge between younger and older generations and that it will make inflation worse, won’t be good for the economy and make them worse off.

Amid fears over more rate hikes and ongoing cost-of-living pressures, almost one in two voters believe the budget will make inflation worse, compared to only 9 per cent who say it will make it better and 32 per cent who say it will make no difference. Coalition, One Nation and independent voters were more likely to say the budget would fuel inflation.

The government’s big sell on its $47bn housing program and crackdowns on negative gearing and CGT appears to have a long way to go, with just 27 per cent of voters saying the budget was a step in the right ­direction. In contrast, 38 per cent said the budget was a step in the wrong direction and 22 per cent said it would make no difference.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/politics/newspoll-jim-chalmers-and-anthony-albaneses-budget-flops-with-every-generation-of-voters/news-story/45c8892cc75b73f650c0b6b50405fce9

I don’t understand this new death tax.

I’m always against increased taxes.

I think it’s far better for the country to reduce government  wasteful spending.

( Anika wells travel claims!)

The little I understand about this death tax is it only targets the wealthy.

I’m very far from wealthy.

Regardless any tax ( particularly a death tax) should be fairly implemented across the society.

I argue the less wealthy you are the more government benefits you will receive in life from the government.

If  a death tax is to be at least make it fair and applied to all in a pro ratio way.

It’s just not fair to  only tax some Australians.

It’s almost as if labor is trying to kick start a class war but it’s failing.

Daves2017 wrote on May 18^th, 2026 at 7:08pm:

I don’t understand this new death tax. I’m always against increased taxes. I think it’s far better for the country to reduce government spending. The little I understand about this death tax is it only targets the wealthy. I’m very far from wealthy. Regardless any tax ( particularly a death tax) should be fairly implemented across the society. I argue the less wealthy you are the more government benefits you will receive in life from the government. If  a death tax is to be at least make it fair and applied to all in a pro ratio way. It’s just not fair to  only tax some Australians. It’s almost as if labor is trying to kick start a class war but it’s failing.

Socialists,  cultural Marxists -

they eventually run out of other peoples money.   ::)

Daves2017 wrote on May 17^th, 2026 at 6:27pm:

It saddens me but I understand the rise of one nation.

It saddens me too, and I also understand their rise.

There are millions of racists/white supremacists in this country.

greggerypeccary wrote on May 18^th, 2026 at 7:17pm:

Daves2017 wrote on May 17th, 2026 at 6:27pm: It saddens me but I understand the rise of one nation. It saddens me too, and I also understand their rise. There are millions of racists/white supremacists in this country.

There are no racists in Australia.

Bobby. wrote on May 18^th, 2026 at 7:21pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on May 18th, 2026 at 7:17pm: Daves2017 wrote on May 17th, 2026 at 6:27pm: It saddens me but I understand the rise of one nation. It saddens me too, and I also understand their rise. There are millions of racists/white supremacists in this country. There are no racists in Australia.

Of course not.

And there are no bear turds in the woods.

Daves2017 wrote on May 18^th, 2026 at 7:08pm:

I don’t understand this new death tax. I’m always against increased taxes. I think it’s far better for the country to reduce government  wasteful spending. ( Anika wells travel claims!) The little I understand about this death tax is it only targets the wealthy. I’m very far from wealthy. Regardless any tax ( particularly a death tax) should be fairly implemented across the society. I argue the less wealthy you are the more government benefits you will receive in life from the government. If  a death tax is to be at least make it fair and applied to all in a pro ratio way. It’s just not fair to  only tax some Australians. It’s almost as if labor is trying to kick start a class war but it’s failing.

Quote:

I don’t understand this new death tax.

Me either fully. It seems to be about testamentary trusts which are used by wealthy people to avoid tax at the highest rate by splitting it when distributed in a tax effective manner, it onlt applies when distributed (not at death). There are not a lot of these - under 1%. I am not sure that if this is really a death tax or not. I am against death taxes but this isn't targeted against poor people in general as far as I can see at least.

Tax experts are saying it's not a death tax but it would result in higher tax on testamentary trusts. There are other types of trusts not impacted by this and current existing arangments are grandfathered so not impacted. The number of these trust has doubled in the last decade or so. Maybe they are just heading off a potential future issue. As I said I don't really know but apart from being a potential foot in the door for future genuine death taxes I don't see any real impact here.


Quote:

Treasurer Jim Chalmers says the Coalition is wrong to call the minimum 30 per cent rate on disbursements from discretionary testamentary trusts a death tax. "There are no changes to death duties or inheritance taxes in the budget that we announced on Tuesday night. As the budget papers make very, very clear, the deceased estates, fixed trusts, and existing discretionary testamentary trusts are all exempt from the changes that we announced on Tuesday night," Mr Chalmers said. He said people would still be able to set up fixed testamentary trusts, which could disburse assets in a consistent way, "if they want to avoid the minimum tax". "If people want to avoid paying the minimum tax into the future with the kinds of testamentary trusts that they set up in wills, they can continue to do that if it's a fixed trust," Mr Chalmers said.  https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-05-18/treasurer-discretionary-testamentary-trusts-death-tax-scare/106691132

Believe Treasurer Jim Chalmers or not.

greggerypeccary wrote on May 18^th, 2026 at 7:24pm:

Bobby. wrote on May 18th, 2026 at 7:21pm: greggerypeccary wrote on May 18th, 2026 at 7:17pm: Daves2017 wrote on May 17th, 2026 at 6:27pm: It saddens me but I understand the rise of one nation. It saddens me too, and I also understand their rise. There are millions of racists/white supremacists in this country. There are no racists in Australia. Of course not. And there are no bear turds in the woods.

We have diversity in our multicultural utopia.

Dnarever wrote on May 18^th, 2026 at 7:40pm:

It seems to be about testamentary trusts which are used by wealthy people to avoid tax at the highest rate by splitting it when distributed in a tax effective manner, it onlt applies when distributed (not at death).

Wrong. A testamentary trust only becomes operational on the death of the testator. What they are trying to do is limit them to nondiscretionary trusts. But discretionary trusts do have valid uses. You wouldn't want them to dispense a lump sum to an 18 year old for instance, they don't likely have the real world expertise to handle it. Or where there is another competence issue. So they may say they can get x amount a year, which may increase annually, to say 28 and then become entitled to the bulk of the estate.

Dnarever wrote on May 18^th, 2026 at 7:40pm:

He said people would still be able to set up fixed testamentary trusts, which could disburse assets in a consistent way, "if they want to avoid the minimum tax".

Chalmers wants to say it is not a death tax, but it becomes a de facto death tax when any of the beneficiaries have competence issues, and must be paid out on death rather than increased competence.

Bobby. wrote on May 18^th, 2026 at 7:41pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on May 18th, 2026 at 7:24pm: Bobby. wrote on May 18th, 2026 at 7:21pm: greggerypeccary wrote on May 18th, 2026 at 7:17pm: Daves2017 wrote on May 17th, 2026 at 6:27pm: It saddens me but I understand the rise of one nation. It saddens me too, and I also understand their rise. There are millions of racists/white supremacists in this country. There are no racists in Australia. Of course not. And there are no bear turds in the woods. We have diversity in our multicultural utopia.

Quote:

There are no racists in Australia.

You cannot post here and even pretend to support that position. We have some doozies amoung us.

lee wrote on May 18^th, 2026 at 7:55pm:

Dnarever wrote on May 18th, 2026 at 7:40pm: He said people would still be able to set up fixed testamentary trusts, which could disburse assets in a consistent way, "if they want to avoid the minimum tax". Chalmers wants to say it is not a death tax, but it becomes a de facto death tax when any of the beneficiaries have competence issues, and must be paid out on death rather than increased competence.

You are talking about the case for 0.1% of the 1% where a discretionary trust can do the same thing slightly differently using a trustee to control the asset allocation with better estate protection. Discretionary Trusts require a high set up cost and are controled typically by up to 5 trustees to make the decisions conscensus based. The tax free threshold is about $17,500 after which they get taxed at your normal tax rate. These Trusts have always been taxed. ???

A budget of broken promises broken hearts and broken dreams.

AnAl wants to bring in another million people on top of the 1.4 million he has already brought in putting more strain on housing and hospitals.

Page 158 shows with the increase in supply over the next decade expected to be only 35,000 dwellings fewer compared to no tax policy change
Government admits tax policy is a dud why are there 35,000 fewer houses under AnAls policy if it's supposed to increase supply?
Budget does nothing to increase housing supply while importing millions of people

Page 159 says rents will increase by less than $2 a week.
Have you ever heard of landlords increasing rent by $2 per week what a load of bullshit from the bullshitters

Budget paper expects mining investment to go to zero in 2027-28.

$3.8 billion for suburban rail loop in Victoria for the bankrupt labor state government to give to CFMEU crooks.
A few Peanuts nothing significant for regional Australia.
$4.4 billion cut to inland rail which will pay for rail in Victoria.

Net zero spending on page 125 says Not For Publication Labor is hiding how much they're spending on Net Zero.
How can a budget have NFP what are they trying to hide?

Housing numbers aren't going up they're going down rents will increase it does nothing to address supply and demand with their mass immigration.
House prices will continue to increase along with rent.

Inflation will hit 5% wage growth at 3.1 % so workers will continue to go backwards.

Interest rates will go up so those who own homes and have money in the bank will be OK.

Canada reduce immigrationi

---

NZ reduced immigration

Canada and NZ eased housing prices by reducing immigration AnAl has done the opposite.

---

Dnarever wrote on May 18^th, 2026 at 9:29pm:

You are talking about the case for 0.1% of the 1% where a discretionary trust can do the same thing slightly differently using a trustee to control the asset allocation with better estate protection.

yes, Testamentary trusts form about 1% of all trusts. non-fixed discretionary trust then represent a minuscule part of that, it hardly seems like the cash cow they represent it as. ::)


Dnarever wrote on May 18^th, 2026 at 9:29pm:

These Trusts have always been taxed.

Not according to AI.

"Short answer: No.

Explanation (brief):

    Discretionary (family) trusts have long existed in Australia, but the tax treatment has not been the same at all times. Traditionally trusts have been treated as flow‑through vehicles: trust net income is taxed in the hands of beneficiaries who are presently entitled, and trustees are taxed only in limited circumstances (e.g., where beneficiaries are under legal disability or non‑residents). ato.gov.au
    Governments have repeatedly considered trustee-level taxation for discretionary trusts (notably exposure draft proposals in 2000–2001 and reviews in the 2000s), but those earlier attempts were withdrawn or modified; legislation since the 2000s has focused on particular anti‑avoidance measures rather than blanket trustee taxation. taxboard.gov.au"

So it is back to Shortens attempt. And that means it was never an original thought by Albo or Chalmers.

BTW - there is nothing proposed by Labor, that should the inheritor become competent, older, wiser, and get full rights, for the tax to be stopped.

lee wrote on May 19^th, 2026 at 1:25pm:

Dnarever wrote on May 18th, 2026 at 9:29pm: You are talking about the case for 0.1% of the 1% where a discretionary trust can do the same thing slightly differently using a trustee to control the asset allocation with better estate protection. yes, Testamentary trusts form about 1% of all trusts. non-fixed discretionary trust then represent a minuscule part of that, it hardly seems like the cash cow they represent it as. ::) Dnarever wrote on May 18th, 2026 at 9:29pm: These Trusts have always been taxed. Not according to AI. "Short answer: No. Explanation (brief):     Discretionary (family) trusts have long existed in Australia, but the tax treatment has not been the same at all times. Traditionally trusts have been treated as flow‑through vehicles: trust net income is taxed in the hands of beneficiaries who are presently entitled, and trustees are taxed only in limited circumstances (e.g., where beneficiaries are under legal disability or non‑residents). ato.gov.au     Governments have repeatedly considered trustee-level taxation for discretionary trusts (notably exposure draft proposals in 2000–2001 and reviews in the 2000s), but those earlier attempts were withdrawn or modified; legislation since the 2000s has focused on particular anti‑avoidance measures rather than blanket trustee taxation. taxboard.gov.au" So it is back to Shortens attempt. And that means it was never an original thought by Albo or Chalmers. BTW - there is nothing proposed by Labor, that should the inheritor become competent, older, wiser, and get full rights, for the tax to be stopped.

Quote:

Not according to AI.

Funny the search engine AI on my computer clearly says that it is taxed and does it several times in its brief summation.


Quote:

Testamentary trusts offer significant tax advantages in Australia, primarily by allowing trustees to split income among beneficiaries to minimize overall tax. Because they are established by a will, income distributed to minor children is taxed at adult marginal tax rates, giving them access to the standard tax-free threshold.

In fact the whole benifit of these trusts is in the Tax managment. If it doesn't allow tax minimisation the trick is to use a different Trust type. The whole point of them is to avoid paying the proper tax rate.

Average people on average wages do not use these.

Dnarever wrote on May 19^th, 2026 at 4:52pm:

Quote: Testamentary trusts offer significant tax advantages in Australia, primarily by allowing trustees to split income among beneficiaries to minimize overall tax . Because they are established by a will, income distributed to minor children is taxed at adult marginal tax rates , giving them access to the standard tax-free threshold.

And nowhere does it say that a discretionary testamentary trust can't be used for minors, until they reach capacity. It then can be managed, if the trust is set up correctly, to give the inheritor the full inheritance with no taxation, at present. Under the new rules you will not be able to do that.

Did you ask about that of AI? You have to be specific in what you ask.


Dnarever wrote on May 19^th, 2026 at 4:52pm:

The whole point of them is to avoid paying the proper tax rate.

What is the "proper rate of tax" for a minor? ::)


Dnarever wrote on May 19^th, 2026 at 4:52pm:

Average people on average wages do not use these.

And I never said anything different. ::)


what are the avantages od using a discretionary testamentary trust?

"Flexibility in distribution: trustees can decide who receives income or capital and when, letting the trust adapt to changing family needs or beneficiary circumstances.
Asset protection from beneficiaries’ creditors: trust assets are generally not owned by beneficiaries, reducing risk from their bankruptcy, lawsuits, or relationship breakdowns.
Protection for vulnerable beneficiaries: helps manage funds for minors, those with disabilities, or beneficiaries with substance abuse or poor financial skills."

lee wrote on May 19^th, 2026 at 5:19pm:

Dnarever wrote on May 19th, 2026 at 4:52pm: Quote: Testamentary trusts offer significant tax advantages in Australia, primarily by allowing trustees to split income among beneficiaries to minimize overall tax . Because they are established by a will, income distributed to minor children is taxed at adult marginal tax rates , giving them access to the standard tax-free threshold. And nowhere does it say that a discretionary testamentary trust can't be used for minors, until they reach capacity. It then can be managed, if the trust is set up correctly, to give the inheritor the full inheritance with no taxation, at present. Under the new rules you will not be able to do that. Did you ask about that of AI? You have to be specific in what you ask. Dnarever wrote on May 19th, 2026 at 4:52pm: The whole point of them is to avoid paying the proper tax rate. What is the "proper rate of tax" for a minor? ::) Dnarever wrote on May 19th, 2026 at 4:52pm: Average people on average wages do not use these. And I never said anything different. ::) what are the avantages od using a discretionary testamentary trust? "Flexibility in distribution: trustees can decide who receives income or capital and when, letting the trust adapt to changing family needs or beneficiary circumstances. Asset protection from beneficiaries’ creditors: trust assets are generally not owned by beneficiaries, reducing risk from their bankruptcy, lawsuits, or relationship breakdowns. Protection for vulnerable beneficiaries: helps manage funds for minors, those with disabilities, or beneficiaries with substance abuse or poor financial skills."

Quote:

What is the "proper rate of tax" for a minor?

Likely over 95% of people using these trust and not minors they are just people trying to avoid taxation.

I do agree with protecting the use for children and other disadvantaged people. Also concerned about the problems where these could be used to disadvantage people by having these peoples money being managed or misused by others unnecessarily.

I never heard of a testamentary trust until a few days ago.     :-[

Could I have beaten the tax man?   :-/

lee wrote on May 19^th, 2026 at 5:19pm:

Dnarever wrote on May 19th, 2026 at 4:52pm: Quote: Testamentary trusts offer significant tax advantages in Australia, primarily by allowing trustees to split income among beneficiaries to minimize overall tax . Because they are established by a will, income distributed to minor children is taxed at adult marginal tax rates , giving them access to the standard tax-free threshold. And nowhere does it say that a discretionary testamentary trust can't be used for minors, until they reach capacity. It then can be managed, if the trust is set up correctly, to give the inheritor the full inheritance with no taxation, at present. Under the new rules you will not be able to do that. Did you ask about that of AI? You have to be specific in what you ask. Dnarever wrote on May 19th, 2026 at 4:52pm: The whole point of them is to avoid paying the proper tax rate. What is the "proper rate of tax" for a minor? ::) Dnarever wrote on May 19th, 2026 at 4:52pm: Average people on average wages do not use these. And I never said anything different. ::) what are the avantages od using a discretionary testamentary trust? "Flexibility in distribution: trustees can decide who receives income or capital and when, letting the trust adapt to changing family needs or beneficiary circumstances. Asset protection from beneficiaries’ creditors: trust assets are generally not owned by beneficiaries, reducing risk from their bankruptcy, lawsuits, or relationship breakdowns. Protection for vulnerable beneficiaries: helps manage funds for minors, those with disabilities, or beneficiaries with substance abuse or poor financial skills."

Quote:

And nowhere does it say that a discretionary testamentary trust can't be used for minors

No and the point being adressed here was you saying that AI say's that there is currently no tax applied to these trusts which is clearly incorrect. You just take a step to the right and continue on a second not disputed topic point. Then a jump to the right (because you always go that way).


Quote:

[quote]These Trusts have always been taxed.

Quote:

Not according to AI.

[/quote]

Well AI is wrong or would be if it really said that - it doesn't.

Quote:

Exemptions: The minimum tax does not apply to fixed trusts, widely held trusts, complying superannuation funds, charitable trusts, special disability trusts, or complying deceased estates. Furthermore, existing fixed testamentary trusts are also exempt from this measure.

.

Quote:

Transitional Relief: To assist small businesses and others wishing to restructure out of discretionary trusts, the government is providing expanded rollover relief for a three-year period beginning 1 July 2027

.


Quote:

Labor’s proposed 30 per cent tax on discretionary trusts will not be among the first tranche of budget bills introduced in the next sitting week, Anthony Albanese says amid backlash over the levy. The tax would apply a minimum 30 per cent rate on the trusts in a bid to stop rich Australians using them to reduce their taxable income and assets on paper. But the Prime Minister said on Tuesday the trust tax legislation would “take longer to develop” than other budget measures in a sign it could be rethought.

.

Under current rules, a high-earning individual could channel their business or investment profits through a trust and distribute it to family members with no or little incomes, such as adult children or a stay-at-home spouse.

But Australians leaving money for their families after they die could also be captured by the new tax, prompting the Coalition to decry it a “death tax”.


Quote:

Discretionary testamentary trusts are set up in a will and are not taxed when at death but when they are disbursed. The reforms would change that by applying the minimum rate on a trust’s taxable income before distributing it. Both Mr Albanese and Treasurer Jim Chalmers have rejected the claim that the proposed rate would amount to a death tax, which Australia abolished almost 50 years ago. https://www.news.com.au/finance/money/tax/anthony-albanese-delays-controversial-trust-tax-law-amid-fierce-backlash/news-story/ac7d90bae7592649ae949e251990676a

Seems that Labor may be looking at how to fix the faulty part of this.

Bobby. wrote on May 20^th, 2026 at 9:25am:

I never heard of a testamentary trust until a few days ago.     :-[ Could I have beaten the tax man?   :-/

Yes - If you are both wealthy and dead (just joking). No this is less than 1% of trusts.

How this works is if you say put $2M into this type of trust funded by a death in this case. You can distribute that money at say $18K per year tax free. Because that $18.2K it the lower limit for tax and this falls under the tax starting limit there is no tax on the person who recieves the trust. It also means that anything they earn on top is taxed straight away. What the chage does is to tax at 30% any profit made on the lump sum to be paid by the  Trustee. (only the interest is taxed).

How this works:

Example: You have 4 children peing paid by the trust and a non working wife. The trust pays them $25k each.

18,200 is the current min tax threshold. That means that each recipiant would pay about $1,088 in tax.

That is income total for all 5 people  = $125,000.00
Total tax for all 5 people = $5440.00

Not a bad deal I can see why a labor gov would want to end that and why a Lib Gov wouldn't.

Yes Bobby you can do this if you have a spare $1,500,000 dollars or so laying around doing nothing but avoiding taxes.

Bobby. wrote on May 20^th, 2026 at 9:25am:

I never heard of a testamentary trust until a few days ago.     :-[

I suspect that nobody has much outside the 1% of trust users who have one and their slimy advisers have.

Dnarever wrote on May 20^th, 2026 at 10:07am:

Bobby. wrote on May 20th, 2026 at 9:25am: I never heard of a testamentary trust until a few days ago.     :-[ Could I have beaten the tax man?   :-/ Yes - If you are both wealthy and dead (just joking). No this is less than 1% of trusts. How this works is if you say put $2M into this type of trust funded by a death in this case. You can distribute that money at say $18K per year tax free. Because that $18.2K it the lower limit for tax and this falls under the tax starting limit there is no tax on the person who recieves the trust. It also means that anything they earn on top is taxed straight away. What the chage does is to tax at 30% any profit made on the lump sum to be paid by the  Trustee. (only the interest is taxed). How this works: Example: You have 4 children peing paid by the trust and a non working wife. The trust pays them $25k each. 18,200 is the current min tax threshold. That means that each recipiant would pay about $1,088 in tax. That is income total for all 5 people  = $125,000.00 Total tax for all 5 people = $5440.00 Not a bad deal I can see why a labor gov would want to end that and why a Lib Gov wouldn't. Yes Bobby you can do this if you have a spare $1,500,000 dollars or so laying around doing nothing but avoiding taxes.

It is 5 different people. Why would you treat them as a single recipient when you cannot similarly pool your income while you are alive and have $18k treated as tax free for every member of your household?

Avoiding to pay tax you do not have to is common sense. Not the same as tax evasion of tax you are required by law to pay.

As Packer explained, governments are not spending our money so well that we want to give them extra.

Dnarever wrote on May 20^th, 2026 at 9:13am:

Likely over 95% of people using these trust and not minors they are just people trying to avoid taxation.

So if a testamentary trust is taxed at adult rates, how do they avoid taxation? ::)

Dnarever wrote on May 20^th, 2026 at 9:35am:

Well AI is wrong or would be if it really said that - it doesn't.

Then perhaps you can show, through AI, that they have "always" been taxed? ::)

Dnarever wrote on May 20^th, 2026 at 10:07am:

18,200 is the current min tax threshold. That means that each recipiant would pay about $1,088 in tax. That is income total for all 5 people  = $125,000.00 Total tax for all 5 people = $5440.00

Now then ...  that would certainly apply, but it is a family trust not a testamentary trust. And it means that the money belongs to the recipients, not to the trustee who distributes it. That mean the beneficiaries would be able to sue to recover their money, if it was withheld. So these people would gladly live on $25k a year?  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


Dnarever wrote on May 20^th, 2026 at 10:21am:

I suspect that nobody has much outside the 1% of trust users who have one and their slimy advisers have.

Ah you suspect. It shows the level of your knowledge. ;)

Frank wrote on May 20^th, 2026 at 11:47am:

Dnarever wrote on May 20th, 2026 at 10:07am: Bobby. wrote on May 20th, 2026 at 9:25am: I never heard of a testamentary trust until a few days ago.     :-[ Could I have beaten the tax man?   :-/ Yes - If you are both wealthy and dead (just joking). No this is less than 1% of trusts. How this works is if you say put $2M into this type of trust funded by a death in this case. You can distribute that money at say $18K per year tax free. Because that $18.2K it the lower limit for tax and this falls under the tax starting limit there is no tax on the person who recieves the trust. It also means that anything they earn on top is taxed straight away. What the chage does is to tax at 30% any profit made on the lump sum to be paid by the  Trustee. (only the interest is taxed). How this works: Example: You have 4 children peing paid by the trust and a non working wife. The trust pays them $25k each. 18,200 is the current min tax threshold. That means that each recipiant would pay about $1,088 in tax. That is income total for all 5 people  = $125,000.00 Total tax for all 5 people = $5440.00 Not a bad deal I can see why a labor gov would want to end that and why a Lib Gov wouldn't. Yes Bobby you can do this if you have a spare $1,500,000 dollars or so laying around doing nothing but avoiding taxes. It is 5 different people. Why would you treat them as a single recipient when you cannot similarly pool your income while you are alive and have $18k treated as tax free for every member of your household? Avoiding to pay tax you do not have to is common sense. Not the same as tax evasion of tax you are required by law to pay. As Packer explained, governments are not spending our money so well that we want to give them extra.

You do give them extra Frank - rich people not paying any tax means that you have to pay more - a lot more. Maybe I am incorrectly assuming that you do pay tax?

Yor really believe that rich people should not need to pay tax and that tax is only for the people who are poor and / or have average incomes ?

You really believe that multy million dollar funds should be able to 100% avoid tax on profit and at the same time fund disipersment from these funds should also be able to be managed to be tax free literally for decades. This example would ultimately disperse millions of dollars virtually tax free.

lee wrote on May 20^th, 2026 at 1:20pm:

Dnarever wrote on May 20th, 2026 at 10:07am: 18,200 is the current min tax threshold. That means that each recipiant would pay about $1,088 in tax. That is income total for all 5 people  = $125,000.00 Total tax for all 5 people = $5440.00 Now then ...  that would certainly apply, but it is a family trust not a testamentary trust. And it means that the money belongs to the recipients, not to the trustee who distributes it. That mean the beneficiaries would be able to sue to recover their money, if it was withheld. So these people would gladly live on $25k a year?  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Dnarever wrote on May 20th, 2026 at 10:21am: I suspect that nobody has much outside the 1% of trust users who have one and their slimy advisers have. Ah you suspect. It shows the level of your knowledge. ;)

Quote:

Now then ...  that would certainly apply, but it is a family trust not a testamentary trust.

Not correct - the example specifically applies to a testamentary trust in fact a testimentary trust is a type of family trust designated from a will. They are both treated almost identically in terms of taxation. The only real difference is in how they are formed.  Basically if the creator is dead, alive or a business.

A fixed family trust is less common and used differently.

lee wrote on May 20^th, 2026 at 1:20pm:

Dnarever wrote on May 20th, 2026 at 10:07am: 18,200 is the current min tax threshold. That means that each recipiant would pay about $1,088 in tax. That is income total for all 5 people  = $125,000.00 Total tax for all 5 people = $5440.00 Now then ...  that would certainly apply, but it is a family trust not a testamentary trust. And it means that the money belongs to the recipients, not to the trustee who distributes it. That mean the beneficiaries would be able to sue to recover their money, if it was withheld. So these people would gladly live on $25k a year?  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Dnarever wrote on May 20th, 2026 at 10:21am: I suspect that nobody has much outside the 1% of trust users who have one and their slimy advisers have. Ah you suspect. It shows the level of your knowledge. ;)

Are you saying that you had an in depth knowledge of Testamentary Discretionary Trusts before this story ? From the dribble in your posts we all know that isn't true.


Is anyone here claiming such knowledge ?
I doubt it very much.

Dnarever wrote on May 20^th, 2026 at 2:26pm:

A fixed family trust is less common and used differently.

Yes a non fixed testamentary trust, as described by you, is 0.1% of 1% or 0.00001% at 30%, or 0.000003%. And they expect to make millions. ::)

So then what is the cost of collection? I mean they will have to be audited, won't they?

Dnarever wrote on May 20^th, 2026 at 10:07am:

Bobby. wrote on May 20th, 2026 at 9:25am: I never heard of a testamentary trust until a few days ago.     :-[ Could I have beaten the tax man?   :-/ Yes - If you are both wealthy and dead (just joking). No this is less than 1% of trusts. How this works is if you say put $2M into this type of trust funded by a death in this case. You can distribute that money at say $18K per year tax free. Because that $18.2K it the lower limit for tax and this falls under the tax starting limit there is no tax on the person who recieves the trust. It also means that anything they earn on top is taxed straight away. What the chage does is to tax at 30% any profit made on the lump sum to be paid by the  Trustee. (only the interest is taxed). How this works: Example: You have 4 children peing paid by the trust and a non working wife. The trust pays them $25k each. 18,200 is the current min tax threshold. That means that each recipiant would pay about $1,088 in tax. That is income total for all 5 people  = $125,000.00 Total tax for all 5 people = $5440.00 Not a bad deal I can see why a labor gov would want to end that and why a Lib Gov wouldn't. Yes Bobby you can do this if you have a spare $1,500,000 dollars or so laying around doing nothing but avoiding taxes.

OK thanks but I'm neither wealthy nor dead.    :)

Sounds like a tax rort though.   :-/

Rather than attacking 0.1 percent of the population how much more money could be saved dealing effectively with corruption in political parties rorts?


“ Public anger surrounding Australian politicians' tax and expense claims recently peaked during a massive travel expenses saga. Lawmakers billed taxpayers millions for family travel, lavish work trips, and sporting events. This sparked significant backlash and forced the Independent Remuneration Tribunal to heavily restrict politicians' travel perks.The recent saga, expense rules, and key regulatory changes include:The Federal Travel SagaThe Incidents: High-profile parliamentarians, including Minister for Sport Anika Wells, Trade Minister Don Farrell, and Greens Senate Leader Sarah Hanson-Young, came under fire for expensive family travel entitlements. For example, Wells expensed over \(\$94,000\) in flights to a UN social media summit in New York and charged taxpayers for family attendance at sporting events.The Response: While politicians defended the trips by stating they fell within existing guidelines, the scale of spending triggered severe public backlash.Entitlement Rules and ScrutinyFamily Travel: Historically, politicians could bill taxpayers for up to nine return business-class trips for partners and up to three flexible economy trips for dependents traveling to Canberra.Independent Oversight: Lawmakers' spending is audited by the Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority (IPEA).”

“Ai

lee wrote on May 20^th, 2026 at 2:37pm:

Dnarever wrote on May 20th, 2026 at 2:26pm: A fixed family trust is less common and used differently. Yes a non fixed testamentary trust, as described by you, is 0.1% of 1% or 0.00001% at 30%, or 0.000003%. And they expect to make millions. ::) So then what is the cost of collection? I mean they will have to be audited, won't they?

It doesn't apply to existing Trusts only new ones. The existing process is that the Trusts trustee has to provide a yearly tax return. The new process is that the Trustee will have to provide a tax return. The ATO currently processes that tax return in the new process the ATO will need to process that tax return.

The only thing that changes is that there is a 30% tax on profit for the year. This tax can be offset by non refundable tax credits for the individuals personal income tax. As their is already a tax return sent in the difference is that the ATO will process the tax liability to the fund including the 30% tax on yearly profit and supply the offsets.



Quote:

Australia now has over one million trusts, of which around 840,000 (80 per cent) are discretionary trusts. In 2022–23, discretionary trusts distributed $142.4 billion in income to other entities, with average annual growth in income of 7.8 per cent since 2011–12. The majority of trust income flows to the top earning 10 per cent of families and approximately 90 per cent of total private trust wealth is held by the wealthiest 10 per cent of households (those with net worth above around $2.3 million). https://budget.gov.au/content/factsheets/download/tax-explainers-minimum-tax-discretionary-trusts.pdf

lee wrote on May 20^th, 2026 at 2:37pm:

Dnarever wrote on May 20th, 2026 at 2:26pm: A fixed family trust is less common and used differently. Yes a non fixed testamentary trust, as described by you, is 0.1% of 1% or 0.00001% at 30%, or 0.000003%. And they expect to make millions. ::) So then what is the cost of collection? I mean they will have to be audited, won't they?

Quote:

non fixed testamentary trust, as described by you, is 0.1% of 1% or 0.00001% at 30%, or 0.000003%. And they expect to make millions. ::)

Non fixed Trusts make up over 80% of the million trusts (over 800,000 of them) testamentary trusts are about 1% of that number. The change applies to all 80% of non fixed trusts. That is 80% of $142 Billion will pay 30% minimum tax. Most of these funds do pay an amount of tax mostly by the benificiary as long as the fund itself is not in breach of several rules. The benificiary pays tax at their normal tax rate after any offsets.

If the fund pays money to people who do not qualify and a few other things like not dispersing its funds before the end of the financial year the fund is penalised at 49%.

Nobody is making a fuss about the normal family trusts which are treated identically because there is no way to pretend it relates to a death tax.

The reality here is that Tax has always applied to things like profit made on investments after the Benificiary has been allocated the assets.

i.e the benificiary's asset is making a profit on investment and they are responsible for the tax on that profit. It's simply no different to how other inheritance is treated in tax law. Nobody calls that a death tax. If you inherit a house you pay tax on its apreciation when it is sold, If you inherit money you pay tax in its future interest rates etc.

Dnarever wrote on May 20^th, 2026 at 7:42pm:

Non fixed Trusts make up over 80% of the million trusts (over 800,000 of them) testamentary trusts are about 1% of that number.

And I am arguing about the non fixed testamentary trusts, which you insist will not have a bearing on minors or those with other disabilities. ::)

Dnarever wrote on May 20^th, 2026 at 1:41pm:

Frank wrote on May 20th, 2026 at 11:47am: Dnarever wrote on May 20th, 2026 at 10:07am: Bobby. wrote on May 20th, 2026 at 9:25am: I never heard of a testamentary trust until a few days ago.     :-[ Could I have beaten the tax man?   :-/ Yes - If you are both wealthy and dead (just joking). No this is less than 1% of trusts. How this works is if you say put $2M into this type of trust funded by a death in this case. You can distribute that money at say $18K per year tax free. Because that $18.2K it the lower limit for tax and this falls under the tax starting limit there is no tax on the person who recieves the trust. It also means that anything they earn on top is taxed straight away. What the chage does is to tax at 30% any profit made on the lump sum to be paid by the  Trustee. (only the interest is taxed). How this works: Example: You have 4 children peing paid by the trust and a non working wife. The trust pays them $25k each. 18,200 is the current min tax threshold. That means that each recipiant would pay about $1,088 in tax. That is income total for all 5 people  = $125,000.00 Total tax for all 5 people = $5440.00 Not a bad deal I can see why a labor gov would want to end that and why a Lib Gov wouldn't. Yes Bobby you can do this if you have a spare $1,500,000 dollars or so laying around doing nothing but avoiding taxes. It is 5 different people. Why would you treat them as a single recipient when you cannot similarly pool your income while you are alive and have $18k treated as tax free for every member of your household? Avoiding to pay tax you do not have to is common sense. Not the same as tax evasion of tax you are required by law to pay. As Packer explained, governments are not spending our money so well that we want to give them extra. You do give them extra Frank - rich people not paying any tax means that you have to pay more - a lot more. Maybe I am incorrectly assuming that you do pay tax? Yor really believe that rich people should not need to pay tax and that tax is only for the people who are poor and / or have average incomes ? You really believe that multy million dollar funds should be able to 100% avoid tax on profit and at the same time fund disipersment from these funds should also be able to be managed to be tax free literally for decades. This example would ultimately disperse millions of dollars virtually tax free.

Wealth accumulated through legal, taxable enterprise.

Why tax it AGAIN just because you died?

Why is death now a taxable 'activity'?