Nicholas Samios

@PhillipCoorey “Their people” were only ever on loan by Labor.

Teals reduced to bystanders as Labor targets their people afr.com/politics/feder…

Just when you thought the ABC couldn’t get lamer.

@AlanKohler @abcnews You only mentioned Trump once. Lost a bet with myself. I guessed thrice.

This week's column for @abcnews in which I explain why Angus Taylor's immigration/housing policy would not result in a cut to immigration and suggest that migration should be run by an independent body like the Reserve Bank. abc.net.au/news/2026-05-2…

@_rebase @TheKouk These things cross my desk from time to time. It’s worse than you think.

@nicksamios @TheKouk new company start ups... the NDIS must be booming!

Number of new company starts up has boomed over the last few years. It's likely to slow in line with the economic downturn sparked by high interest rates, oil and fiscal tightening

@TAFEdefender Albo and his cadre of career politicians take our tax to buy votes to keep them in power. The rest is propaganda.

#insiders Albanese doesn't take your tax. Its used to pay for healthcare, education & infrastructure ffs

Lying = "doing an Albo" I like that. @AlboMP

@cjoye @Harold36089778 Unlike Pauline.

But they have never worked a day in the private sector; never started a business; built a new product or service; hired a single soul from their hip pocket; or struggled for years, always at risk of going under… What we are seeing is the lid being lifted on those who have always lived completely taxpayer-funded lives trying to take and tax as much as possible to feather the public sector nest. They have never known what it is like to draw a private wage and/or profit. They think it is a zero sum game: any private income, profit or capital gain needs to be redistributed back to government and its dependents. It is the only way they know how to make money: by taxing private citizens and corporations to fund the public oligarchy and its way of life…

@grok @lynne_barkley @strangerous10 Sorry, I said the top 10% pays only 50%. It’s 52%.

**Yes, it's roughly true and has been cited that way in official analyses.** According to the Parliamentary Budget Office (using ATO data), the top 10% of earners paid **52%** of personal income tax in 2021-22. It was expected to dip below 50% in 2022-23 onward due to tax offset changes and bracket creep, landing around 47% in projections to 2032-33. Older analyses (e.g., for working-age taxpayers) put it right around 50%. Definitions matter slightly—all positive-income filers vs. actual tax-payers—but the top decile consistently shoulders about half the load. The system is quite progressive.

"I think you need to take a Valium, take a Bex and have a lie down," Mr Petre told ABC News. A much-needed reality check for the ultra-wealthy crying about having to pay their fair share. Thank you Mr Petre. #auspol

@lynne_barkley @strangerous10 .@grok is it true that 50% of personal income tax paid in Australia is paid by the top 10% payers?

@nicksamios @strangerous10 Do they? Do they really?

@michaelsnape Was tempted to support him with a $0.47 donation.

Dickhead has been rage baiting for days. A post 12 hrs ago got 1,100 impressions. He supposedly has 18,000 followers So, 6% of his followers looked at his post. Sad. Just sad.

@RealJakeBroe The kids call this “cope”.

In a dictatorship, comedians are not allowed to make fun of the guy in charge.

@AshPolitik Your side is being turned on by its traditional base. Reflect on that.

One Nation can't run a press conference, let alone a country. Attacking the free press is the first sign of fascism and erosion of Australian freedom and democracy. #auspol #politics #news #Australia #PaulineHanson

@Peter_Fitz Trump beat him.

Great t-shirt!

Honestly Albo, if you just kept the changes to existing homes, we wouldn't be here. Instead it turned into a broader revenue raising exercise worth about 3.5 weeks worth of NDIS funding a year in 2030, with little gained in the short term. theguardian.com/australia-news…

Good. End this thing and move on. An enormous amount of problems to fix in our own country.

@SimonBanksHB @ajamesbragg @SkyNewsAust @AngusTaylorMP If HawkerBritton started up today you’d have no hard assets to index and the founders would get reamed on the exit. But you’re grandfathered so don’t sweat it.

If you want to know why the LNP are currently projected to win just 12 seats at the next election Then just watch @ajamesbragg train wreck interview on @SkyNewsAust Downgardes @AngusTaylorMP tax cuts to an "aspiraction" Then can't explain how they will pay for them

@cjoye The letter argues this is constitutionally invalid as an illegal penal confiscation rather than a valid tax, citing High Court precedents on s51(ii) (not a true tax but forfeiture/penalty) and s51(xxxi) (acquisition of property without just terms).

From a reader... Dear Sir Under current legislation, all trusts (not just discretionary trusts) are taxed on accumulated income to which no beneficiary is presently entitled. Such income tax is assessed to the trustee under section 99A of the Income Tax Assessment Act, 1936 (“the Act”). The tax rate assessed to the trustee is at the highest marginal rate, plus Medicare. That imposition amounts to 47% of the accumulated income. The Commissioner retains a discretion to assess such income under section 99 of the Act, (which applies personal rates of taxation) but that discretion is exercised sparingly and only in limited cases, such as deceased estates and bankruptcies. Again, under current legislation, a share of trust income – to which a minor or a non-resident beneficiary is presently entitled to – is assessed to the trustee under section 98 of the Act and assessed again to the beneficiary with a full credit given to the beneficiary for the tax assessed to the trustee. The 2026 Federal Budget proposals change the concept of the taxation of beneficiaries of trust estates that has applied since the Federal Government introduced income tax. That is done by treating the trustee as a separate taxpayer on income to which beneficiaries of a discretionary trust are presently entitled to. Now, a beneficiary is said to be presently entitled only on the after-tax net income of a discretionary trust estate. Any credit for tax paid by the trustee, under these new proposals: is not fully credited to the beneficiary if it produces a cash tax refund to the beneficiary, and in the case of a corporate beneficiary the tax paid by the trustee is not credited at all. With all due respect to Treasury officials and the Treasurer, who devised this new arrangement, there is a complete misconception on who is being assessed on income to which a beneficiary is presently entitled to. Unlike companies, where the taxable income of a company is legally and beneficially derived by the company, in the case of trusts, including discretionary trusts, any net income of a trust estate to which a beneficiary is presently entitled to is income of the beneficiary, not the trustee. By taxing the trustee on income to which the trustee is not beneficially entitled to, and not passing the tax paid by the trustee to the beneficiary who is entitled to that income from the trust estate is not a tax, but – in my opinion – an illegal penal confiscation. Allow me to explain: The Core Problem: When a trustee is assessed on income to which a beneficiary is already beneficially entitled, without any credit (or a full credit) being passed to the beneficiary, two (2) serious legal problems arise with regard to the Constitutional validity of the legislation purporting to assess: 1. Section 51(ii) — Is it a Valid "Tax" or a Penalty/Forfeiture? The High Court in Matthews v Chicory Marketing Board (Vic) (1938) 60 CLR 263 confirmed that a tax is "a compulsory exaction of money by a public authority for public purposes, enforceable by law, and... not a payment for services rendered." A "tax" – in the constitutional sense – requires it to be imposed for revenue-raising purposes, not as a punishment or confiscation. See Woodhams v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation of the Commonwealth of Australia (1997) VSC 59 on what constitutes a penalty (and not a tax). The key issue is whether imposing the full tax burden on a trustee — without any (full) credit mechanism for the beneficial owner — crosses the line from taxation into something more like a forfeiture or a penalty. In these circumstances, I submit the trustee’s right to exoneration and indemnity are in jeopardy and a beneficiary would be entitled to restrain the trustee from using trust funds to discharge a personal obligation, that is not a fiduciary obligation, even if the obligation was imposed by flawed legislation. 2. Section 51(xxxi) — Acquisition on Just Terms If the Commonwealth imposes a liability on a trustee with respect to property or income beneficially owned by another, and the trustee cannot recover that tax from the trust estate or beneficiary through the tax legislation itself or under the terms of the relevant trust deed, this could constitute an acquisition of property (money) from the trustee without just terms, contrary to s 51(xxxi) of the Commonwealth Constitution. The High Court has ruled in Minister of State for the Army v Dalziel (1944) 68 CLR 261 and most recently in Government of the Russian Federation v Commonwealth of Australia [2025] HCA 44 that section 51(xxxi) of the Constitution will protect a party whose property is assumed by the Commonwealth without compensation. The term “property” is widely characterised to give the affected party full constitutional protection. In my view, the proposed arrangements don’t fall into the unintended consequences camp, as is often claimed when some controversy is later discovered after a proper and considered analysis. In this case, the proposed arrangements are fundamental misconceptions, that fail to recognise basic constitutional protections.

@pwafork Pure communism. If I can’t afford what you have, you have to give it to me.

Today Albo emoted about how his budget was for millions of Australians who've never thought about setting up a trust. What about the millions more who've never thought what can I get away with on my travel allowance, and will Qantas give me an upgrade just for being a minister?