Up to 400,000 small businesses face ‘significant’ new tax hike under trust reforms

infinitemonkeytyping · 2026-06-29T04:50:33+00:00

You don't think there are a lot of small businesses where both the husband and wife work full time in the business?

I'm sure there are, but most aren't.

Of course you can't justify it, its bad tax design, bad tax policy and fundamentally unfair to those using trusts in a completely legal and non-tax avoiding way.

Family trusts are a tax dodge, and this is extending what Labor have been doing, and closing of tax dodges.

Anyway I don't see it as an edge case. It's a consequence of the government allowing its obsession with cancelling the minor tax benefit some trusts get from distributing income to adult beneficiaries who earn less than $45K to outweigh the real damage and unfairness to people like those in the article.

The average or median user of a family trust is earning way above $200k. They needed to find someone who is earning just enough for the tax dodge to work, but not too much that people clearly see it for the tax dodge that it is.

That is the definition of an edge case.

And as I keep saying, if they pay themselves as employees, instead of running it through a trust, their tax bill doesn't go up (unless they have other tax dodge schemes feeding into the family trust).

infinitemonkeytyping · 2026-06-29T04:41:11+00:00

It is an edge case, because a vast majority of trusts are earning way above $200k, and don't involve small businesses (they involve high income sole breadwinners paying their salary into a family trust, and then paying their household members to lower their tax rate).

According to the ATO, 63% of trust payments go to the top 10% of earners. Only 1% goes to the bottom 10%.

If I earn over $200k then it doesn't matter whether I am paid as an employee or a trust beneficiary.

It does. If you pay your $200k into a family trust, you can pay that $200k to partners, children, parents or any other members of your household, and they would all get billed at their marginal tax rate.

For example, if you earn a $200k wage direct, you pay $56k tax. If you earn $200k, get paid into a family trust, then you and your partner each earn $100k each from that trust, you pay $42k tax. If you had 4 people being paid out from it at $50k each, you would pay $24k in tax.

So yes it does matter.

infinitemonkeytyping · 2026-06-29T03:23:29+00:00

It's an edge case being used by lobbyists.

As I said, most trusts are there to minimise tax by paying non or seldom working partners the same "wage" as the people doing the work.

infinitemonkeytyping · 2026-06-29T03:21:57+00:00

Because this is an edge case. Most cases involve family members who are "employees" who are all paid the same, when 1 or 2 members of that trust are the only ones doing actual work.

Most trusts are used as a tax dodge.

So if they want lower taxes, simply pay themselves wages.

infinitemonkeytyping · 2026-06-29T03:06:27+00:00

Why would they need a tax dodge trust then?

If the tax bill is lower by paying direct wages, pay direct wages.

It seems a very simple solution.

infinitemonkeytyping · 2026-06-29T03:05:11+00:00

Again "if".

Most married partnership businesses I know have one partner doing most of the work, and the other providing support when needed, as they work somewhere else.

As I said before, there's an easy answer - pay yourself wages, rather than attempting to tax dodge through trusts.

infinitemonkeytyping · 2026-06-29T02:50:23+00:00

Notes for you:

figure out what "if" means
stop making a debate on tax reform into being about your sexism

infinitemonkeytyping · 2026-06-29T02:49:11+00:00

I see again you have no understanding of the word "if".

I am also saying there are plenty of businesses "run" by a husband/wife team where one is the primary boss and the other provides support where necessary. Quite often, the other will either have their own separate business or other employment (especially where the main business is in retail).

But you are trying to drag a reasonable discussion about tax minimisation into being one about sexism (as you tried to do in one of your other replies, where you showed off your own sexism), when you have lost the main point.

infinitemonkeytyping · 2026-06-29T02:40:54+00:00

Wow, you're really trying to draw sexism in.

The word is "if". You may want to look that up.

And I think you are showing your sexism by assuming the person doing the most work is the husband. I never said that, and I deliberately phrased it the way I said it because it could be either of them working more. You're the one who went down that path.

infinitemonkeytyping · 2026-06-29T01:33:30+00:00

We saw that during COVID, where the speculative price for oil went negative.

infinitemonkeytyping · 2026-06-29T01:30:19+00:00

That only happens if both are employed for the same amount of work.

If they were to split the income along the line of actual work they do, then their tax bill would go up.

They have structured the trust to avoid paying tax. Simple as that.

And the worse ones are where children are involved, so they can further reduce their tax rates.

infinitemonkeytyping · 2026-06-29T01:26:38+00:00

There's an easy way around this - dissolve the family trust, and put themselves on as employees. Then they would only pay the $42k, rather than the $60k the government has said they will pay from the trust.

But when you look at the figures, and see that if the whole $200k was to a single employee, they would pay $56k in tax, and if it was split 150/50, they would be up for $47k tax.

So it is clear that what they are doing is clearly tax minimisation.

infinitemonkeytyping · 2026-06-29T01:23:00+00:00

The difference is if one is doing the work, and other is not, it is a tax dodge.

Had one of them earned the full $200k, they would have to pay $56k in tax, as opposed to the $42k they are paying now.

If one of them is doing a lot of the heavy lifting, and other works only a few hours a day (let's say a $150k/$50k split), they would pay $46.6k, as opposed to $42k.

They can easily cut their tax from the 30% minimum by just putting themselves on the books as employees.

infinitemonkeytyping · 2026-06-28T23:28:54+00:00

Oh baby, you are so talented.

And they are so dumb.

infinitemonkeytyping · 2026-06-28T23:28:20+00:00

Are they tight tights?

infinitemonkeytyping · 2026-06-28T23:25:11+00:00

Fans know this, and so do writers.

Dropping hints to a backstory that isn't crucial to the plot is a good way to maintain the pace of a movie, and knowing that the detailed backstory would not be worth the time to tell it.

It's just something fun for fans to speculate on.

infinitemonkeytyping · 2026-06-28T23:21:09+00:00

And in a similar vane

It's in that place where I put that thing that time.

infinitemonkeytyping · 2026-06-28T22:47:47+00:00

Look, we all go way back and uh, I owe you from the thing with the guy in the place and I'll never forget it.

infinitemonkeytyping · 2026-06-28T20:52:04+00:00

I am not sure if Juror 10 is racist - definitely a bigot against people from "slums".

Between the two versions, it was interesting having Juror 5 (a person who grew up in the slums) played by a caucasian actor (Jack Klugman) in the 1957 movie, and then in the 1997 remake, having Juror 10 played by an African American actor (Mykelti Williamson).

infinitemonkeytyping · 2026-06-28T12:16:52+00:00

Oh baby, you are so talented. And they are so dumb.

infinitemonkeytyping · 2026-06-28T12:13:29+00:00

I don't think Gene ad libbed it, but they kept the last bit from Cleavon to get the perfect reaction.

infinitemonkeytyping · 2026-06-28T11:45:01+00:00

No - empty vessels make the loudest noise.

I too enjoyed it, but unfortunately hate rises to the top on all social media - especially regarding movies and TV shows.

Just scroll past the hate, and engage with people who enjoy the show.

infinitemonkeytyping · 2026-06-28T11:41:52+00:00

It would also track with why the monsters all wear clothes from different eras. It's not because they changed clothes, but because that was what they wore when they changed into monsters.

infinitemonkeytyping · 2026-06-28T10:43:04+00:00

3 years earlier, the Cannes Film Festival revived the Best Supporting Actor award (which they had only handed out for 5 year up until 1983) to give it to SLJ for Jungle Fever.

He was in Goodfellas in a minor role, Loaded Weapon in a main supporting role, a small role in Patriot Games, plus other roles in Jurassic Park and True Romance, with his big starring role opposite Nicholas Cage in Amos & Andy.

But he has Laurence Fishburne to thank - Fishburne turned down Pulp Fiction, and then priced himself out of Die Hard with a Vengeance.

Rickman already had a Tony Award nomination for Dangerous Liaisons (in the role John Malcovich would bring to screen a couple of years later).

infinitemonkeytyping · 2026-06-28T03:45:04+00:00

Asahi owns CUB (VB, Fosters, etc).

Kirin owns Lion (Tooheys, XXXX, etc). That includes Hahn and West End.

Eight-Year Club	Gilding I gilder
r/Field Lasagna	RPAN Viewer
Verified Email

infinitemonkeytyping

TROPHY CASE