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


Quote:


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:


Believe Treasurer Jim Chalmers or not.

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


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.

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


Quote:


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

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


Page 159 says rents will increase by less than $2 a week.


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

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


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:


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.

Dnarever wrote Yesterday at 4:52pm:



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 Yesterday at 4:52pm:


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

Dnarever wrote Yesterday at 4:52pm:


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."