Waiting in line at Brisbane airport boarding 1015 leaving 1115.
Abf officer won't accept electronic invoice for mobile phone even though live claims processing is available.
I tried ringing border control but nothing could be done. I got a reference number.
https://www.abf.gov.au/entering-and-leaving-australia/touris…
What can I do? It's only $40 but it's the principle of the matter.
UPDATE: I showed him the Customs website and it went through.
You should really have printed it out.
Think of the trees!
Think of your $40!
Hemp paper ?
i thought it was common sense that you supply a printed copy.
It’s common sense that it’s no different printed or in electronic form, given op could have just printed and wasted paper for no reason.
obviously there is
There's really only one man to contact to get this sorted. Details below:
All good. I showed him the above and it went through fine and I didn't miss my flight!
Good stuff. But yeah - I have no faith in customs (or really any govt agency), and certainly not in anything time-sensitive. Glad it worked out though.
Still better than the Democrats' AOC.
Since your political proclivity seems very similar to mine, you'll find anything she says a hoot and a toot.
Don't Walk, Run! Productions does a really good commentary on her policies.
OP is asking a question about the TRS scheme and you're bringing AOC into the discussion and pushing some shitty youtube channel, holy tangent batman! What is it with you guys and your obsession with that woman?
@tre180: What is the Left's obsession with that woman? She applauded Amazon not building their HQ in NY (which would've brought in 25,000 jobs). She wants a 70% top marginal rate (which is like wanting to be Venezuela while Venezuela still exists as an object example of what not to be). And she wants to basically nationalise the US energy sector to bring net emissions down to 0 (did I say Venezuela? Yeah, Venezuela).
She's like the Dems' crazy rebound from Hillary - but taken to extremes because the breakup with Hillary was so bad. Honestly - and I'm not a GOP supporter by any means (if I was in the US, I'd be a Will McAvoy Republican - but other than Hillary, conservatives in the US should be gunning for her to succeed, because she'll split the Dems, drive away moderates, and drive Dem support for bills that will sound good but lead to resounding failure.
She's basically the Democrats' version of the Tea Party. Taking the leftist principles to extremes, displacing moderate left-wing members, using rhetoric and demagogic popularity over sustainable and substantive policy positions.
While this is a (wide) tangent, eugh. AOC is…. the worst kind of social-media politician. Literally all fluff and no substance, knee-jerk unconsidered positions, and seemingly thrives on being hip and cool than on delivering actual results. She's the US Congressional version of the school captain candidate who promises to build a swimming pool and cotton-candy Tuesdays.
Seriously, have you read this?
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/5729035/Green-New…
Her "Green New Deal" talking points memo. Has gems like:
Economic security for all who are unable or unwilling to work
Hahahahahahahahaha.
This: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is the Left’s Manic Pixie Dream Girl seems like a good characterisation of her current role/position in the Dems. Anyone who's familiar with the MPDG (character archetype) trope will notice immediate parallels.
@HighAndDry: She's the best thing that's ever happened to Democrats Republicans.
I feel bad for derailing the thread with my sandwich stuffed face fueled spontaneous reaction. I'll just watch the convo unfold even though I'd love to chime in.
Penance.
Despite not being an admirer of her policies, do you agree that she has a point on some things? Like this:
@dazweeja: No - that was a cheap rhetorical ploy for mainstream (read: ignorant) popularity.
Politicians can do bad things. But government is not supposed to be a self-contained institution - this is why journalists and elections exist.
It's part of the balance of power - while it'd be good to legally restrain what politicians can and can't do, they (as a collective) form part of the three-way balance of power structure between the Legislature, Judiciary, and the Executive. They need wide latitude to operate without judicial supervision so that the balance is maintained.
@HighAndDry: I thought it was an effective rhetorical ploy for mainstream (yes, in many cases ignorant) viewers who may not understand the issues otherwise. Politicians can do bad things and it makes put in place laws to mitigate this where practical. The flaws she pointed are very real, are solvable, and there's little detriment to doing so. In fact, I'd find it a bit strange if someone believed that most of the areas she mentioned could not be improved.
@dazweeja: It really sounds a lot better on the surface than it actually is. I'll use quotes from this article just because it's the first I came across:
Let’s say I have some skeletons in my closet that I need to cover up so I can get elected… So I use my special interest dark money-funded campaign to pay off folks that I need to pay off to get elected.
This requires that journalists are also complicit. A working fourth estate prevents this already.
Now I’m elected I have the power to draft, lobby and shape the laws that govern the USA. I can be totally funded by oil and gas, by big pharma, and there’s no limit to that whatsoever.
No, but legally they must be disclosed - and the electorate are supposed to be the ones to police this. If "we the people" are okay with it? Then there isn't an issue (or rather the issue would lie with "we the people").
So either she's deliberately misrepresenting how government is supposed to work for rhetorical points (which worked), or she actually doesn't understand how a democratic government is supposed to work.
The law is not supposed to be the be-all and end-all check and balance on ELECTED officials. It's in the name - they're elected, and can be likewise voted out.
This requires that journalists are also complicit. A working fourth estate prevents this already.
Trump did make such payments and they were only discovered after he was elected. It was not prevented, primarily because AMI chief David Pecker was clearly complicit.
No, but legally they must be disclosed - and the electorate are supposed to be the ones to police this.
The only way the people can police this is by electing representatives who aren't funded by oil and gas, big pharma, etc. And it's much more difficult for these people to get elected because they are at a huge financial disadvantage. So the system is self-perpetuating. Or the people can elect representatives who might legislate limits for this kind of financing. Like AOC. I think she understands the system just fine.
And I think you're glossing over the biggest problem and that is that Trump doesn't have to disclose all his financial interests. He doesn't have to release his tax returns. He doesn't even have to put his money in a blind trust (although he kinda-but-not-really did). When he makes decisions, the American people don't actually know how he is benefiting financially. That is a huge issue and one we don't have in Australia (because the PM and all MPs are bound by the Register of Members' Interests). These are the kind of problems that AOC wants to fix.
Trump did make such payments and they were only discovered after he was elected. It was not prevented, primarily because AMI chief David Pecker was clearly complicit.
Okay - why do you blame the politician for this (whose job is not to disclose their dirty laundry), as opposed to the journalists involved (whose job is to report the news)?
The only way the people can police this is by electing representatives who aren't funded by oil and gas, big pharma, etc.
Yes. That's correct.
And it's much more difficult for these people to get elected because they are at a huge financial disadvantage.
Why? Bernie Sanders was able to get his word out purely on donations and self-funding. And he's like a 70 year old retiree who's never worked a job in his life.
Or the people can elect representatives who might legislate limits for this kind of financing. Like AOC.
Not sure what to tell you - but you need more than one rep in Congress to pass laws.
Trump doesn't have to disclose…
Okay. Notice I mentioned journalists further up? Yeah.
On a side note, you bring up the fact that people voted AOC into office as support for the fact that people want these laws. What about the fact that EVERY OTHER member of Congress, and Trump, were also all elected into office too?
Are AOC's voters somehow magically the only ones who're intelligent and knowledgeable? Or do the views of voters who vote in ways you disagree with not count?
Okay. Notice I mentioned journalists further up? Yeah.
Just so we're clear - you believe that a system where the American people are not able to know when the President is financially benefiting from their decisions (unless it is uncovered by journalists) is better than a system based on transparency where the President must legally disclose their financial interests, as is the case in Australia? If so, would you advocate for removing the Register of Members' Interests here? I'm a bit unclear of your actual position - you seem intent on defending the status quo in the US, are dismissive of AOC's views, and seem to feel that journalism is sufficient to keep the system in check.
Are AOC's voters somehow magically the only ones who're intelligent and knowledgeable? Or do the views of voters who vote in ways you disagree with not count?
I never implied that her views took precedence or represented the majority. You said that electorate are supposed to be the ones to police this and I said that voting for people like her is one of the ways that they can do this. She's just one voice and on this particular issue, I think she has a message worth listening to.
You showed him your ozbargain post and he let you thru? Wow the power of ozbargain ;P
Wow air New Zealand wifi free is the greatest!
I meant the customs website obviously!
I know this is ozbargain, but you really should have printed the receipt. At least do it at work if you're tight.
Anyone realised that the TRS website doesn't mention the address on invoices over AUD1000 anymore. Seems like a name is sufficient.
In addition, tax invoices for sales of AUD1000 or more must include the buyer's identity, for example their name or passport number.
I brought an item collected sheet rather than invoice once, and then the officer asked if I could show him the electronic invoice, and he accepted that and processed the refund
Why didnt you print it?