What's with Businesses Posting 47% Partnership with Albo

pjbargain15 on 17/05/2026 - 16:10
Last edited 17/05/2026 - 16:56

What's up with businesses posting about Albo being 47% silent partner?! Like, I get it about 30% CGT on GAINS, for stock prices. But cmon, as a salaried employee I have been paying 45% for part of my income for years. I didn't see people posting Albo is their silent roommate!

CGT does not change anything for salaries, so can't business owners draw salaries like the rest of us peasants, instead of gaming the system through stocks of the company? This just feels like levelling the field. Trying to understand, how is it worse?

EDIT: meme for reference https://imgur.com/a/U1Auf4t

Financial

Comments

Best
Search through all the comments in this post.
  • bemybubble on 17/05/2026 - 16:43

    It’s because when you start a business you start from zero. You invest capital and time which otherwise wouldn’t return until years later. Salary or goodwill.

    Hence the memes.

    • 30
      • bemybubble on 17/05/2026 - 17:11

        The fatal part of your equation is assuming there’s money there to pay yourself a wage.

        When you start a business that can take years before you do. Everyone else gets paid first (including employees) and the business owner is always last.

        • 31
        • mskeggs on 17/05/2026 - 17:41

          How many businesses are selling for lots of money if they can't make many paying a wage?
          You're imagining some profitable business that just happens to not have money to pay wages.

          If your pool cleaning van can't pay you wages, who is buying it? And how are you going to relocate this almost failing business to Singapore?

          • -1
          • Shame on 17/05/2026 - 18:56

            @mskeggs: Some businesses make cash on day one such as being a gardener, other businesses need a large upfront CAPITAL cost and then years before they have paid off that cost, e.g. Private hospital, LNG plant, IT company, apartment builder. With the CAPITAL gains tax increase you are discouraging CAPITAL intensive businesses. It is not that hard to understand. Do you want everyone to be a gardener?

            • 5
            • tenpercent on 17/05/2026 - 22:12

              @Shame:

              Do you want everyone to be a gardener?

              How pretty would Australia be though! /s

              • 3
            • mskeggs on 17/05/2026 - 20:18

              @Shame: The companies investing in a hospital do not qualify for cgt discounts.
              I don't understand why you think they would stop building hospitals, LNG plants, apartments?
              IT companies are quite a bit less capital intensive.

              In all cases, you still get paid if you have a successful business.

              • 1
              • Shame on 17/05/2026 - 20:26

                @mskeggs: "you still get paid if you have a successful business", except 50% of small business fail in 5 years which is why we give them a discount on their upfront investment, also know as CAPITAL, because they take on a RISK in starting a business. We also give them a discount because earning nothing over 10 years and then getting a large payoff is not the same as earning an average amount over 10 years without any RISK. Starting a business is not the same RISK as being a public servant.

                • 6
              • Shame on 17/05/2026 - 20:32

                @mskeggs: I said "private hospitals" not "government owned hospitals"

                • 1
                • mskeggs on 17/05/2026 - 22:15

                  @Shame: Sure, and I said why would companies, who do not get CGT discounts, stop funding hospitals or other capital investments?

                  • 0
                  • Shame on 17/05/2026 - 22:27

                    @mskeggs: Yes, some of them will. They will work out that Australia is a high taxing country for investors and they will invest in better locations like New Zealand, Singapore or the USA. Some of them will even move their families to these countries.

                    • -1
            • Muppet Detector on 18/05/2026 - 15:15

              @Shame:

              other businesses need a large upfront CAPITAL cost and then years before they have paid off that cost,

              Tax deductible capital?

              • 0
            • whyisave on 19/05/2026 - 17:48

              @Shame:

              Some businesses make cash on day one such as being a gardener
              .
              Do you want everyone to be a gardener?

              Gardener ?

              Three-Letter Agencies will be after you now.

              • 0
          • bemybubble on 17/05/2026 - 17:45

            @mskeggs:

            And how are you going to relocate this almost failing business to Singapore?

            My point was about the ultra wealthy - the ones supposedly we are targeting. Not small.

            I’d be highly surprised if a small business would look to uproot their affairs (not impossible though).

            But that’s the point. Big business. Will move as it’s a numbers game. Small business are the collateral damage and will cop it. Double negative.

            • 4
            • mskeggs on 17/05/2026 - 18:08

              @bemybubble: Was the CGT discount (which companies don’t get) the thing keeping them here?

              My genuine experience with startup founders, that I assume is the people you think will be impacted here, who have sold for 100s of millions is they like Australia a lot and don’t want to live in other places.

              And most of them spent years growing the business from nothing. If it was irrelevant where this business growth occurred, why isn’t Singapore the location for every new business (I think it is because most new businesses don’t start with multi-million investments).

              • 0
              • bemybubble on 17/05/2026 - 18:32

                @mskeggs: Your comment was about whinging about tax policy. Not just CGT. To which I responded what people are doing. Whether that’s solely based on CGT. Doubtful. But throw it into the mix of everything else proposed? Absolutely.

                You’re genuine experience with start up founders needs to be reflected post budget night.

                why isn’t Singapore the location for every new business

                Are you talking small or large or existing?

                If you’re trying to encourage new business to Australia then why bother.

                Small business owners aren’t likely to start in Singapore. In fact some would be unlikely to start at all.

                Those who started as a small business who have made it will now have the capacity to review their operations to move to such places.

                The common theme here is incentive to do business in Australia. That ties to your point about tax policy.

                • 3
          • boirganz on 18/05/2026 - 15:28

            @mskeggs: They’re not. That’s the point.

            • 0
        • VladImpaler on 17/05/2026 - 18:23

          This is the lie that businesspeople keep on perpetuating, that they are selfless heroes that pay everyone but themselves. The real world truth is that businesspeople always pay themselves first. If they can't bother paying suppliers or workers they just phoenix the business with zero repercussions.

          • -1
          • bemybubble on 17/05/2026 - 18:27

            @VladImpaler: I wonder if you’d be so bold to say that to your favourite local cafe or restaurant.

            If they can't bother paying suppliers or workers they just phoenix the business with zero repercussions.

            At no stage was a discussion had about phoenixing. In fact it was the opposite.

            • 1
          • JIMB0 on 18/05/2026 - 07:32

            @VladImpaler:

            The real world truth is that businesspeople always pay themselves first.

            Not true, it's usually a relative that "works" in the business.

            • 0
        • pjbargain15 on 17/05/2026 - 17:16

          Not the fatal part, that's the second part where I mentioned about loss. If there is no money, how are employees paid salaries? It's the same for the owner. Core question remains - how does CGT change any of this?

          • -6
          • bemybubble on 17/05/2026 - 17:24

            @pjbargain15: How are employees paid money?

            With money in the bank.

            How is the owner paid salaries?

            With money in the bank.

            But again. You’re assuming enough there to do so. Will an owner pay themselves before their employees? That would make for an interesting pay day wouldn’t it.

            The CGT discount recognises “sweat equity”. Which by literal definition means you work your nuts off to get your business off the ground. Some working 60-80 hour weeks to do so might I add. Those hours build equity, not income. You’re working to build value in your business.

            Now but save for the CGT discount, what incentive was there to recognise that? To be honest even before the CGT discount there is already very little incentive to be a small business owner in Aus.

            What the CGT discount removal does for small business is basically say don’t bother. Might as well get a job as you say.

            • 11
            • jatyap on 19/05/2026 - 20:51

              @bemybubble: If that's the case (build a business up to sell it), it's a horrible business model.

              Businesses should be geared towards making a living (income) and providing a service. SMH.

              • 0
              • bemybubble on 19/05/2026 - 21:33

                @jatyap:

                Businesses should be geared towards making a living (income) and providing a service.

                With all due respect - this is like me telling my wife that childbirth should be a calm experience. And then shaking my head

                it's a horrible business model

                You're right - maybe we should tax people more and hand it out to struggling bus… oh wait a minute.

                • 0
              • bemybubble on 19/05/2026 - 21:37

                @jatyap: And in case you didn't see

                Unless you want to fudge the real world numbers - that's reality. Not fantasy land

                • 0
            • pjbargain15 on 17/05/2026 - 17:37

              @bemybubble: Equity building still offers value, just not as much as it did before. Salaried employees do not get that value even if they are helping the business build that value, and that's fair because they are not exposed to the risk of going bankrupt either. The owner is still coming out on top if the equity produces value, just a bit less compared to before. But that is besides the point of this post - people claiming govt is taking 47% of their company's value is an overstatement

              • -8
      • scotty on 18/05/2026 - 10:03

        There are many business that are aiming for the moon. Instead of drawing salary for themselves, they want to reinvest the profit into expansion — hiring more staff, spending more on promotions, etc — so they can stand out in the crowd and hopefully scale globally. The formula for the last half century has been paying yourself very little, reinvesting the profit, dominating the market, and then either doing an IPO or selling to private equity / other big companies for a big balloon payment at the end. Many failed along the way but many start-ups are taking up the risk for (hopefully) big rewards at the end.

        That's pretty much the basis for innovation, research & development, etc — long risky road with little reward at the beginning and hopefully something that pays well at the end. However with the CGT discount the reward is basically halfed.

        • 19
        • mskeggs on 18/05/2026 - 15:35

          True question as someone who has started a business that was successful in this website.
          Would you have not done it with higher CGT?

          • 1
          • scotty on 18/05/2026 - 16:19

            @mskeggs: I would have started since I wasn't aiming for a moonshot — it was just a hobby in the first place. But somewhere along the line due to less incentive to scale up, I would probably either (1) keep it as a side gig, or (2) restructure / move it elsewhere.

            My case is more of an exception than a norm.

            • 4
            • bemybubble on 19/05/2026 - 05:29

              @scotty: You’ve had a go. You made a decision to expand by having a go. That deserves a clap.

              Please post reels of your lavish Instagram life so the people can continue to feel angry about your success 😒

              • 1
  • mskeggs on 17/05/2026 - 16:26

    I haven't seen this, but it is a good flag to take your business elsewhere if they are whinging so hard about tax policy.
    We all need to pay taxes to pay for the services the government provides.

    • 29
    • CaptainJack on 17/05/2026 - 17:13

      We all need to pay taxes to pay for the services the government provides.

      Funnily enough, I've never seen anyone argue they themselves should pay more tax. It's always someone else that needs to do it. Perhaps you could be the first.

      • 30
      • mskeggs on 17/05/2026 - 17:16

        I am impacted by the changes announced in the budget and will likely pay thousands is additional tax.
        I think this is fine because it brings the tax base closer to one where the people who can afford it pay more.

        • 10
        • brendanm on 18/05/2026 - 11:39

          As usual, the people at the top end of town will be able to avoid it, and the middle income earners will be the ones who cop it.

          • 13
          • mskeggs on 18/05/2026 - 15:07

            @brendanm: It probably is the case wealthy people will be able to avoid some taxes, but the 30% floor will catch a lot of people in that boat, so at least they pay something.

            • 2
            • brendanm on 18/05/2026 - 16:02

              @mskeggs: While people who can't afford it, and wanted to use it as a house deposit, are hit harder.

              • 0
          • boirganz on 18/05/2026 - 15:25

            @brendanm: Middle income is 100k or less.

            The theory is dropping house prices, which makes it better for them.

            • 2
            • brendanm on 18/05/2026 - 16:01

              @boirganz: House prices have nothing to do with dropping the cgt discount on all asset types. None of it is being applied retrospectively to housing, even for people who own multiple properties, so it's going to do diddly squat there.

              There are already ways to get around the negative gearing aspect. Meanwhile, anyone who has invested their money in the hope of using the proceeds of the sale of these investments as a house deposit, will now get reamed with more tax.

              • 1
              • boirganz on 18/05/2026 - 18:11

                @brendanm: I agree the wider CGT doesnt have any specific reference to housing. I'm not a fan - it affects me. I assume there was some advice to fix it at the same time to avoid a rush out of property to the sharemarket.

                Realistically though, the proportion of people who are investing great sums in shares in the hopes of a capital gain profit to use as a housing deposit will be..minimal. The reality is - a greater proportion of people than ever before cannot get into the market as they cannot save fast enough to outpace the price growth. That's what is trying to be deflated. But they're too afraid to do it too quickly I guess?

                I agree also - they should have made it more effective against existing properties by sunsetting the grandfathering. Perhaps a government in the future will do so.

                Meanwhile, we will have to be content with the small reduction and the small pricking of the property bubble, and hope that with enough other changes, we can see a further decline in values relative to incomes.

                • 0
                • Raj09 on 19/05/2026 - 12:45

                  @boirganz: No it's not minimal. Unless you have been living in a cave and never looked away from savings at bank you can make a lot on stocks. If you have not then you seriously have to consider as you're missing a lot.

                  • 0
                • brendanm on 18/05/2026 - 18:13

                  @boirganz:

                  The reality is - a greater proportion of people than ever before cannot get into the market as they cannot save fast enough to outpace the price growth. That's what is trying to be deflated

                  This is not helped by cutting the cgt discount. They are cutting the cgt discount across the board because they run out of other people's money to waste, and need to gather more.

                  Meanwhile, we will have to be content with the small reduction and the small pricking of the property bubble, and hope that with enough other changes, we can see a further decline in values relative to incomes.

                  They could make a massive difference by cutting demand, but that would affect their GDP numbers.

                  • -3
                  • boirganz on 18/05/2026 - 18:17

                    @brendanm: It does help, the modelling shows it will help, and the future will bear that out.

                    This action DOES cut demand, as it reduces the amount of $ available bidding into existing properties.

                    If you mean immigration, the gov is cutting that. Probably not as much as they could, no. But regardless, this action also needed to be taken, and is about 15 years overdue.

                    I mean shit there's already been an immediate small reactionary reduction in the auction clearance rate before the legislation has passed, and some lenders have updated their IP lending rules to reflect the NG changes.

                    • -1
        • ssfps on 19/05/2026 - 01:08

          I think this is fine

          It's not.
          If you look at how much wealth the nation produces, what we are taxed (income and others), and what we actually get for our money, all but the very richest people and businesses pay too much tax. Even the surgeons on a cool $800k are paying more than their fair share of tax. Any tax increase that doesn't only target the massive wealth hoarders and resource-flogging businesses is wrong, and worth whinging about.

          • 0
          • mskeggs on 19/05/2026 - 07:28

            @ssfps: Unfortunately we can't keep adding expenses like aged care, pension increases, health spending, defence increases, ev lease subsidies, superannuation tax concessions etc. etc. without someone paying for it.

            You might be happy with a 1940s set of government services, but the people keep voting for more.

            • 0
            • brendanm on 19/05/2026 - 10:51

              @mskeggs: This is why we need to tax our resources correctly.

              Also why we need to cut all the government spending on garbage and prioritise.

              • 2
            • ssfps on 20/05/2026 - 00:33

              @mskeggs: Your comment didn't address my point at all, but is directed at me?

              • 1
        • ThithLord on 18/05/2026 - 08:12

          Queue downvotes from Greedy Ozbargainers who dislike your resolve.

          • -4
      • happydude on 18/05/2026 - 11:43

        “I am not evading tax in any way, shape or form. Now of course I am minimising my tax and if anybody in this country doesn’t minimise their tax, they want their heads read because as a government I can tell you you’re not spending it that well that we should be donating extra.”

        • 1
        • mskeggs on 18/05/2026 - 15:07

          Not sure KP is my moral pole star.
          Hey, I can call him Goanna these days!

          • 0
      • NigelTufnel on 19/05/2026 - 14:27

        I've never seen anyone argue they themselves should pay more tax

        Except Warren Buffet.

        • 1
      • jatyap on 19/05/2026 - 20:46

        Nah, we're all in the same boat, then count me in.

        I wouldn't mind the gas tax either (they're not mutually exclusive) and would like even more measures to ensure first homebuyers get given the advantage over multi-property investors.

        • 1
    • cfuse on 18/05/2026 - 09:48

      Seeing someone else complain about an obvious rip off doesn't make me think worse of them.

      • 10
    • Almost Banned on 18/05/2026 - 11:19

      Sorry - you think that a business having a whine about tax is grounds to shop elsewhere?
      I mean, you can shop wherever you want - but griping about politicians is a national sport. It should be encouraged, not discouraged.

      • 9
    • Dr Phil on 18/05/2026 - 11:20

      This is everywhere

      As it says
      You take the risks of setting up a business.
      You work hard to build it it.
      And then Albo wants to take most of the goodwill you have generated.
      It kills off any incentive to make money through small business or investment.

      This meme illustrates his new tax policy perfectly.

      Much the same with investment properties.

      And futhermore Albo has been on the public purse all his life living off your tax dollars

      • 6
      • tenpercent on 18/05/2026 - 11:22

        And futhermore Albo has been on the public purse all his life living off your tax dollars

        Cradle to grave

        • 3
        • Dr Phil on 18/05/2026 - 11:25

          And he has made himself exempt from the new tax rules.
          So much for fairness and inequality!
          If its not good enough for him and his Labor mates, why is it fair for everyone else?

          • 5
      • boirganz on 18/05/2026 - 15:26

        Explain how this changes anything significantly for a small business owner.

        • 3
        • NigelTufnel on 19/05/2026 - 14:32

          There's a huge difference between 'small business' and 'tech startup'.
          Does this hurt the usual small business I think about? No, because they are charging what they need from their services to make a decent profit each year to live on, not living off hope to sell their brand big one day.
          Does it hurt tech startups that are hoping to sell their product or idea that they've undercharged for to a big player like google or amazon or something? Yes.

          I think that's the divide.

          • 2
          • Muppet Detector on 19/05/2026 - 14:49

            @NigelTufnel: What is your definition of a small business?

            • 0
            • NigelTufnel on 19/05/2026 - 22:08

              @Muppet Detector: Well, I believe small business is generally anything with under 20 employee.
              But in terms of what I picture, it's mostly sole traders, or small teams, generally in trades like construction, electrical, plumbing, or retail/food services, or financial services.
              My picture and experience with people I know that run small businesses is that they charge adequately for their services to make profit, not taking a loss chasing a brand/tech dream.

              And I'm not saying that the latter is not useful or required. I think they are getting hit hard by a broad brush policy and should probably have some carve-out or extra incentives provided if we want to keep that here.

              • 1
    • ssfps on 19/05/2026 - 01:04

      but it is a good flag to take your business elsewhere if they are whinging so hard about tax policy.

      Our tax system is massively unjust, so the argument that "taxes support public services" is not an argument against whinging about tax law.

      • 0
    • Raj09 on 19/05/2026 - 12:43

      Hahaha. Yes if that's what they do. But our money goes to defence and subsidies to mining companies

      • 0
    • whyisave on 19/05/2026 - 15:32

      I haven't seen this

      Lots of people have been posting this, …reportedly taking inspiration from the Luigi poses from last year in the USA.

      • 0
    • BobCobb on 21/05/2026 - 14:16

      lol Ok.

      • 0
    • bemybubble on 17/05/2026 - 16:53

      but it is a good flag to take your business elsewhere if they are whinging so hard about tax policy.

      They are. A lot are already in talks with their advisors about moving their base of operations to Singapore or NZ. And these people are the ultra wealthy who supposedly were targeting. And this should be a concern for all of us.

      Just to be clear too. The concern isn’t the fact they need to pay their fair share. It’s more the fact these measures do nothing to address it.

      It’s like the royal commission into fin planning and banking all over again. The big banks who the penalties were targeting ended up being useless as they all got out. Leaving all the little guys to pick up the tab.

      So now you’ve got big corporates who will locate elsewhere. And small businesses being punished. Double negative

      • -8
      • pjbargain15 on 17/05/2026 - 16:59

        these measures do nothing to address it

        How? What's stopping the business owners from self paying a salary, instead of $1 salary with stock options that was allowed to exploit CGT discount?

        • 6
        • bemybubble on 17/05/2026 - 17:09

          Nothing. But you’re assuming that business is able to do that from day 1.

          Business owner is the last to get paid. And sometimes it takes years before they can actually make a decent living. You can’t compare that to an employee who gets paid their wage from day one.

          • 37
          • fantombloo on 17/05/2026 - 19:21

            @bemybubble:

            Business owner is the last to get paid.

            Not necessarily. I've numerous times been owed large overdue invoices from business owners who tell me things are super tight as they step into their new range rover.

            • 28
            • bemybubble on 17/05/2026 - 19:22

              @fantombloo: That’s the exception. Not the norm though Fantombloo

              Although it is more common in construction I will concede. Businesses have to have their wits about them.

              But you’ve highlighted the important fact that as a business owner you take on more risk than an employee.

              For the record it infuriates me people who do that with tax debt.

              • 4
              • fantombloo on 17/05/2026 - 19:38

                @bemybubble: Different risks, not necessarily more. Sometimes less visible risks. It can be pretty risky being perpetually subject to employers' whims.

                I deal with construction and plenty more - IME their similarities have more to do with character types than their line of business. Tight margins don't help, but those with larger margins are arguably already screwing someone else over excessively.

                • 0
                • gromit on 18/05/2026 - 16:13

                  @fantombloo: something like 90% of new businesses go bust, show me figures that show 90% of paid employees are getting screwed over. The reality is starting a business is a massive financial risk with very low success rate. At the end of that fail they aren't usually just out of a job they have also lost a considerable amount of money and unpaid time for there trouble.

                  • 1
                  • fantombloo on 18/05/2026 - 16:23

                    @gromit: Not sure how going bust = being screwed over. Guess it depends what you mean by screwed over.

                    I speak as an employer. Employees will generally never recoup the full value they generate. Most will say that's just doing business, in my books that's being screwed over.

                    • 3
                    • gromit on 18/05/2026 - 16:35

                      @fantombloo: you are claiming risks are not more just different. they are massively more to a point they are not remotely comparable.

                      • 0
                  • Hardlyworkin on 18/05/2026 - 19:59

                    @gromit: It's not surprising it's 90% when you consider almost anyone can start a business and the general population at large. Plenty of those people are buying a better job. Source; I've interviewed hundreds of small business owners in a previous life.

                    • 2
            • JIMB0 on 18/05/2026 - 07:26

              @fantombloo: Farmers…. Oh wait, that'd be a brand new LandCruiser.

              • 2
              • weezlebub on 18/05/2026 - 15:10

                @JIMB0: farmers opt for a landcruiser because they'll often get 500,000kms out of the engine before it dies and when a vehicle dies on a farm - it could be life or death - it could be a missed crop …

                • 0
              • HelpMeiCantSee on 18/05/2026 - 16:13

                @JIMB0: More like tradies…

                • 0
              • StingyBritches on 18/05/2026 - 09:13

                @JIMB0: Easy to tell you’ve never been a farmer.

                • -1
                • JIMB0 on 18/05/2026 - 09:40

                  @StingyBritches: True, but you don’t see many farmers driving old clapped out Camrys.

                  • 4
                  • Mythreesons on 18/05/2026 - 15:02

                    @JIMB0: My dad drives a 1990 Land Cruiser Ute, that he is always trying to fix (Can’t get a mechanic out in the middle of nowhere). Never had a brand new car in his life. Maybe you are only seeing city farmers. All his money is spent on running his farm, he is a broken old man who should have retired years ago.

                    • 4
                  • tenpercent on 18/05/2026 - 12:15

                    @JIMB0:

                    True, but you don’t see many farmers driving old clapped out Camrys.

                    Instant asset write-off.

                    • 0
                  • Muppet Detector on 20/05/2026 - 17:11

                    @JIMB0:

                    True, but you don’t see many farmers driving old clapped out Camrys.

                    How many farms have you seen with sealed bitumen roads?

                    • 0
                  • StingyBritches on 18/05/2026 - 12:13

                    @JIMB0: I spent many years in the country - most farmers are smart about money and understand they can have seasons that are great or seasons that are terrible, so balance their money to cater for the 'bad' times. Most are excellent economic managers and need to be!

                    When I was a kid many farmers were 'rich', but it hasn't been like that for decades.

                    • -1
                  • bemybubble on 18/05/2026 - 10:45

                    @JIMB0: This is the problem. People in general looking at what they have vs what you haven’t is by definition tall poppy syndrome. We should be encouraging people to have a go and, if in turn they can afford a Land Cruiser over a Camry. Then good luck to them.

                    There’s a line between that and trying to go after those who are bleeding Australia. The gas tax is a really good example of that.

                    Sorry that comment was directed at you. Wouldn’t let me remove the tag. Talking in general about people’s attitudes towards those that do well and reward themselves.

                    • -2
        • mgfcode on 20/05/2026 - 20:45

          can you elaborate on giving $1 salary with stock option? i thought doesnt matter if is given to employee or owner. stock are treated as normal income (even before selling)

          e.g: if employer give stock thats worth $100k to employee. the employee have to add that $100k to their income tax (even if they did not sell it).
          lets say there were 2 employees. one received 100k salary, another received 100k stock. both will pay the exact same income tax that financial year.

          (btw, this is my understanding. feel free to correct me, happy to learn more)

          • 0
          • Muppet Detector on 20/05/2026 - 21:05

            @mgfcode: Have to pay an employee the minimum wage. Cannot provide shares instead of minimum wage. Shares of this nature are classified as taxable income. Can provide minimum wage and shares.

            Can pay a contractor in shares if they agree. No minimum wage for a contractor.

            "Under the Fair Work Act 2009, an employer must pay an employee at least minimum wage".

            Employee share schemes.

            • 1
            • mgfcode on 20/05/2026 - 21:29

              @Muppet Detector: @Muppet Detector agree with what u said there. and also my understand is that shares are "classified as taxable income" as you mentioned. However OP seem to hint that theres some way to exploit it.

              @pjbargain15 How? What's stopping the business owners from self paying a salary, instead of $1 salary with stock options that was allowed to exploit CGT discount?

              • 0
              • Muppet Detector on 20/05/2026 - 22:05

                @mgfcode: Ok, it seems like he believes that if the business did not have enough money to pay the business owner a salary, then business owner could pay himself $1 and make up the rest of his wage with stock options.

                In the past, he could sell those shares and they were taxed like ordinary income which meant first $18k tax free, up to $45k at 15% and then start paying tax at 30%.

                With new CGT proposed laws, he now has to start paying tax at 30% from the very first dollar, so he is paying more tax.

                OP then says, well business owner gets around that now by just paying himself a salary as if he was a regular employee (so no shares, just a full wage) then he can have the same tax rates as he had before.

                If that is what he is thinking, then he doesn't know about business structures or how shares are created, valued or distributed and he's created some imaginary world that works very differently to ours.

                • 0
  • minijumbuk on 17/05/2026 - 18:08

    What risks did you take being an employee? None really.

    Business owners are often the last to get paid and first to lose capital during bad times.

    • 22
    • pjbargain15 on 17/05/2026 - 23:32

      That's fair, and I already mentioned that businesses have higher risk, compared to salaried employees, and thus have a right for higher rewards. When a business gets funding, listing or acquisition, employees get nothing, and that's a fair system. High risk = high reward. No one is taking away the entirety of gains. It's a tax that is being structured differently, very likely slightly higher than before, and close to what salaried employees already pay. Businesses should generate value out of their equity, not from govt tax breaks.

      • 0
      • bemybubble on 18/05/2026 - 06:12

        Businesses should generate value out of their equity, not from govt tax breaks.

        Be that as it may. But you should be aware:

        I fear we are sleepwalking into a ‘big corporate’
        economy.
        Small business is rightly celebrated for generat-
        ing 33% of our nation’s Gross Domestic Product
        and providing jobs for 5.36 million people – 42%
        of the private workforce.
        But in 2006, small business contributed 40% of
        GDP and employed 53% of those with a private
        sector job.
        This is a worrying trajectory.

        The latest data reveals 46% of small businesses did
        not make a profit in the most recent year of accounts
        available and three-quarters of self-employed business
        owners, for whom their business is their full-time
        livelihood endeavour, are earning less than the average
        total weekly, full-time wage.

        That was from the small business ombudsman.

        So is this a good measure in light of the data? Rhetorical question for most

        • 2
    • BuzzBuzzBuzz on 18/05/2026 - 08:57

      And because of that, your earning potential is limited only by the success of your business. That's the reward.

      • 0
      • minijumbuk on 17/05/2026 - 18:26

        Those risks are so minuscule compared to the risks a business owner has to take surely you agree with that.

        You can't have negative income as a wage earner and that's exactly my point about risk taking. The fact that there are more, a lot more employees than business owners should tell you that many people choose not to take that risk because it, most of the time, lead to financial loss.

        65% of businesses fail in the first 10 years. That's 10 years of work for very little or no return.

        • 10
        • Ponsonby on 20/05/2026 - 16:34

          "Those risks are so minuscule"
          Among the risk that employees take
          - choosing a field of training and an occupation for which (in retrospect) they are not suited e.g the failure rate in many areas of medicine
          - choosing a field of training/occupation for which they ARE suited for but which has poor prospects by the time they finish training e.g many law graduates now, or in the future, ICE mechanics
          - incurring occupational injuries that wipe out all or most of their prospects in their chosen field or related fields well before retirement age (many trades or manual workers, many high stress professional occupations)
          - committing their efforts and family location choices to an employer who does not endure or who chooses regardless of performance to let them go at a difficult stage of their career path
          - technological change, AI, age discrimination etc wiping out their human capital
          - and so on

          • 0
          • bemybubble on 17/05/2026 - 21:44

            @Typical16-bitEnjoyer:

            If such a high percentage of business owners are shit at running a business, sounds like we should stop listening to them on topic of tax…

            Wow. By your logic Does that mean when someone gets made redundant from their job it’s because they are shit at their job?

            • 7
  • Meho2026 on 17/05/2026 - 18:21

    The point is, that the changes disincentivise anyone from investing in a business. Business investment drives growth, jobs and in turn stimulates economic growth.
    Really the government should be encouraging it rather than creating an environment that suffocates it.
    If investors dont invest then you dont get to have a job where your marginal tax is 45%

    • 21
    • AustriaBargain on 17/05/2026 - 18:53

      Actually it incentives people to do it, because the total gains from negative gearing properties while the rest of the country speculated on the value of existing properties, was a LOT more attractive than buying shares of real companies. That's over now, unless you were already doing it, so although shares are less attractive than before, they should be long term a more attractive investment than property, which could now one day be as unattractive as it was in the 90s..

      • 1
Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join