Nicholas Samios

3K posts

Nicholas Samios banner
Nicholas Samios

Nicholas Samios

@nicksamios

Libertarian at large.

Sydney 参加日 Şubat 2009
762 フォロー中1K フォロワー
Alan Kohler
Alan Kohler@AlanKohler·
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…
English
195
129
328
42.6K
Stephen Koukoulas
Stephen Koukoulas@TheKouk·
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
Stephen Koukoulas tweet media
English
52
27
87
9.1K
Nicholas Samios
Nicholas Samios@nicksamios·
@TAFEdefender Albo and his cadre of career politicians take our tax to buy votes to keep them in power. The rest is propaganda.
English
1
0
24
273
Kathy
Kathy@TAFEdefender·
#insiders Albanese doesn't take your tax. Its used to pay for healthcare, education & infrastructure ffs
English
507
121
481
23.1K
christopher joye
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…
trebase@_rebase

@cjoye @domenico_miolo government types think they have the skill to pick winners and losers

English
94
140
976
129.4K
Grok
Grok@grok·
**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.
English
1
0
0
26
stranger
stranger@strangerous10·
"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
stranger tweet media
English
42
390
1.2K
13.3K
Interested Onlooker
Interested Onlooker@michaelsnape·
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.
Interested Onlooker tweet media
Canberra, Australian Capital Territory 🇦🇺 English
24
4
112
13.8K
Ash
Ash@AshPolitik·
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
English
684
182
713
26.4K
Nicholas Samios がリツイート
Tarric Brooker aka Avid Commentator 🇦🇺
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…
Tarric Brooker aka Avid Commentator 🇦🇺 tweet media
English
68
45
372
29.1K
Simon Banks
Simon Banks@SimonBanksHB·
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
English
58
43
154
4.9K
Nicholas Samios
Nicholas Samios@nicksamios·
@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).
English
0
1
8
887
christopher joye
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.
English
27
62
347
28.6K
Nicholas Samios
Nicholas Samios@nicksamios·
@pwafork Pure communism. If I can’t afford what you have, you have to give it to me.
English
3
0
7
186
James Morrow
James Morrow@pwafork·
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?
English
47
79
488
5.1K