Phillip Evans

[Phillip Evans @pmke]

I disagree. Who do you replace him with, and when?
If he’s replaced now (and the budget’s tax changes are suspended) to try to stop the bleeding, there’s 18 months for somebody else to dig them out of the massive hole they’ve dug. Who’s going to take that job and likely lose the election anyway?
If they don’t replace him now, there’s no chance his successor has any credibility (having left him in the chair, uncontested, for 18 months) and has to go to the election with their current policy platform.
I think they’ll keep him until the election, he’ll announce his retirement before calling it, and they’ll hope to lose less seats than they would otherwise. They definitely lose government whichever way they go.
That’s all really bad news for Australia because they have a strong majority now and nothing to lose. I imagine we’ll see all kinds of nightmare legislation over the remainder of this term.

[Phillip Evans @pmke]

You’re assuming Quillette is worth less than $6MM capital gain with under $2MM ARR when sold. I’m not certain either of those are likely to be true and, hence, she’d be unlikely to qualify for the small business concessions. This is why the tech sector, in particular, is concerned about these changes.
(Un)Fortunately, they are also very “portable”…

[Phillip Evans @pmke]

In this guy’s example, he neglects to note the IT entrepreneur could work for a year and get $0 - there’s no guarantee of the $1MM exit. Find me any waged or salaried employee for whom that is true. Yes they can lose their job but they’ve been paid for the work they’ve done to that point. It’s a totally different proposition.

[Phillip Evans @pmke]

@DTealy1 @Wow_canyou_not @FranMooMoo Giraffe doesn’t invest in the housing market because the returns are no longer there, thus less demand for houses leading to lower prices. That seems to be the extent of their thinking.

[Phillip Evans @pmke]

@Daavsss @bodito91193 @profholden @Barnaby_Joyce …and 0.5% after these changes.

[Phillip Evans @pmke]

Amusingly, I asked Grok what AI tools can produce such high quality video. It said (emphasis mine), “The video (a ~30-second political-style ad) includes a clear “A.I. GENERATED CONTENT” watermark in the top right, which is common for transparency in many AI tools. It depicts a realistic scene of a group of women and girls outdoors, with a man (dressed in women’s clothing) pushing forward, overlaid with text about Australian politics/laws (e.g., changes to the Sex Discrimination Act under Gillard).”

[Phillip Evans @pmke]

@Irnbrukidsm @SkyNewsAust No, they’re just leaving and battling somewhere they have a chance of winning.

[Phillip Evans @pmke]

If you distribute through a trust, tax is paid at the recipient’s marginal rate and not until their tax return is finalised (could be 18 months after the money is distributed). These changes will bring the tax collection earlier and prevent any opportunity for a refund based on the beneficiaries marginal rate.

[Phillip Evans @pmke]

@taipan168 @_x_racer_x_ @clairlemon Not if they aren’t doing work for the business. They need to be “real employees” doing real work and paid at rates commensurate with that work. Otherwise you’re proposing tax avoidance (which is illegal).

[Phillip Evans @pmke]

This is a common small business scenario. One parent works > 70 hours per week, often 7 days per week. The other parent supports the business part-time while also running the household. Their kids are in school.
After putting their assets at risk by launching a venture, working like slaves, trying to build something, they eventually manage to return a bit more than the average Australian before tax (perhaps after 5+ years of making much less), still less than they would make if both parents were in the workforce earning the average Australian wage. Worse, because the income is coming to one person, all of the tax burden falls on them; if both parents were working and sharing the tax burden the households take-home pay would be significantly higher.
Income splitting should be built into the tax code but it’s not. Family trusts are the mechanism to enable income splitting. It only works for small businesses (a corporate structure makes more sense if/when they get bigger - true bootstrapping).
These proposed changes will likely cripple family-run small businesses. With closure rates continually climbing (up 25% since fy19-20) this change will only exacerbate a deteriorating situation.

[Phillip Evans @pmke]

@ab2122 @clairlemon @JEChalmers With the wage price index for FY26-27 running at 3.5% - absolutely. It’s worth billions in income tax revenue.

[Phillip Evans @pmke]

It’s interesting to see all the excuses as to why this is happening. “Ohh, it’s so hard to live in Australia these days.” and other hand wringing. It reminds me of “The Lucky Country” and how easily we’ve had it for decades, built on the back of our late 19th/early 20th century founders. Good times breed weak men.
It is harder in Australia today than it was two decades ago but it’s still not at all hard compared to many other countries in the world. We have the resources and the skills and the education to make anything we want; massive advantages the envy of the world. It’s time for Australia to step up and do the hard work if it wants to survive this century. No more whining.

[Phillip Evans @pmke]

From a US world view, Australia has been a socialist state for decades: high taxes, free health care, unending unemployment, etc. accelerated most recently with the NDIS. Even the blue-est of blue states in the US wouldn’t do what Australia has done (well, maybe CA and NY city would give it a go).
The situation in Australia will only get worse now that we have about half the population on some form of welfare.
We need to decide, as a country, to take some personal responsibility (and a little medium-term pain) to right the ship. Or @elonmusk is right and in a few generations the Crocodile Dundee/Steve Irwin/Ernie Dingo Aussies will be extinct, never to return.

[Phillip Evans @pmke]

@Ryandally08 @Wintermute2077 She thinks?

[Phillip Evans @pmke]

@DeniseEllen7 @salltweets The legislation needs to be changed to be more explicit about biological sex: it must take precedence over gender identity.

[Phillip Evans @pmke]

@JohnBB40921542 @firstfusilier The point he’s trying to make is that higher education should be free, thus zero student debt and no loan repayments. Instead, the expense of higher education should be met by taxing the resources industry.

[Phillip Evans @pmke]

@tomaskew7 @matt_barrie @RizviAbul Yes, there’s significant inertia in the system. Perhaps omitting that from Abul’s policy recommendations of so many years ago helps explain the mess we’re in today.

[Phillip Evans @pmke]

@Jesterhat1 @iggy648 @AusPoll6 That may well be so.

[Phillip Evans @pmke]

@iggy648 @AusPoll6 Correct.

[Phillip Evans @pmke]

@iggy648 @AusPoll6 Because that won’t address the underlying issues.