long running

[NSW] Toll Relief Rebate, Up to $750 (2022~2023) or $802 (2023~2024) @ Service NSW

1752

[NSW] Toll Relief Rebate, Up to $750 (2022~2023) or $802 (2023~2024) @ Service NSW

Go to Deal

Pedda1801 on 02/07/2023 - 15:49 service.nsw.gov.au (7547 clicks)
Last edited 03/07/2023 - 18:17 by 2 other users

Reminder of long running deal that you can now claim your toll cashback.

To claim, you need to:

be a NSW resident
spent $375 or more in the 2022-23 financial year)
have an active NSW personal toll account (E-Toll or Transurban Linkt) – if you've moved from interstate, check with your toll provider that you now have a NSW personal account suitable for toll relief
have already paid for the tolls
have an active NSW toll provider account (not suspended or closed)
have accrued the tolls on a vehicle that's privately registered in NSW, and is below 2794kgs TARE weight
have travelled on an eligible NSW toll road
claim within one year of the financial year end in which you paid the tolls
have not already received a rebate in the quarter for which you're claiming nor the maximum rebate in the financial year for which you're claiming.

Note: You must accumulate the eligible toll spend on one personal toll account at a time. If you have multiple tag or tagless products on the one account, the toll spend for all eligible vehicles on that account will count towards the rebate.

For Business Users

Eligible sole traders who have a personal and/or business toll account can claim a 40% rebate.

2022-23 financial year
You need to spend $375 or more on each linked toll account to claim up to $750 per account (maximum $1,500). Claims close 30 June 2024.
2023-24 financial year
You need to spend $402 or more on each linked toll account to claim up to $802 per account (maximum $1,605). Claims close 30 June 2025.

Toll account	2022-23 rebate	2023-24 rebate
Business toll account	Up to $750	Up to $802
Mixed account (personal and business)	Up to $1,500	Up to $1,605
Separate personal and business toll accounts	Up to $750 each	Up to $802 each

Automotive Rebate Toll Road

Unknown

Related Stores

NSW Government

Comments

SBOB on 02/07/2023 - 15:56

-5

Damn, got an Eastlink based toll account, so looks like not an eligible option (and this year I've racked up enough toll $ to exceed that limit due to work trips)

have an active NSW personal toll account

No idea why that should be a requirement, considering I'm still paying the tolls :/
- Weshouldgetsushi on 02/07/2023 - 16:00
  
  +6
  
  Work trips = claim through your employer/business?
mrau on 02/07/2023 - 16:23

+6

Wow, thanks for the post, getting more than $300 back!
dealhunter52 on 02/07/2023 - 16:32

+59

Even though I'm eligible, this is one of the worst use of tax payers money, especially when govt should be tightening it's belt.

Subsidy for rich and businesses, with low to zero benefits to most marginalised sections of society. Just like negative gearing and stage 3 tax cuts.
- AircraftFreight on 02/07/2023 - 16:48
  
  +7
  
  Stage 3 Tax Cuts should be reverted, along with Stage 2 and potentially even Stage 1. As someone who would like to see Australia buy more military equipment, fix Medicare, fix the public health sector, fix the education sector and build more general infrastructure. It can be all paid in 1 year if we simply reverted previous election grab tax cuts.
  
  Maybe Shorten was right.
  - dealhunter52 on 02/07/2023 - 17:06
    
    Building infrastructure had been really a low priority task for successive govts in past few decades. Therefore, we don't even have a 3 lane motorway between 3 of our biggest cities on east coast, forget about the high-speed rail line between them.
    - Russ on 02/07/2023 - 21:57
      
      A high-speed rail line will only get built for idealogical reasons, like reduced carbon emissions.
      
      Just look at the BNE-SYD estimated build cost of $50 billion. Just ONE YEAR of the interest on that money would buy outright a couple of large jet aircraft, and the left-over interest can pay for their fuel.
      
      The jet aircraft will be faster, fully operational from year one, and within a handful of years you'll have a fleet of aircraft that will handle the same number of passengers that the high-speed rail would. And it might even be profitable, unlike 99+% of passenger railways worldwide.
      - AircraftFreight on 02/07/2023 - 22:57
        
        @Russ: Bingo, HSR in Australia is not economically viable, we are spaced too far apart from each other and we wouldnt have enough people using it to make any profit in the near future.
        
        $50 billion can rebuild Sydney's (profanity) and inefficient domestic terminals, grow Western Sydney International, expand Melbourne Airport, expand Brisbane Airport, expand Newcastle, expand Perth, expand Adelaide, subsidize regional services at affordable airfares for regional townsfolks, subsidize new international leisure routes for more tourism growth, build a goddam rail link to Melbourne Airport and more.
        
        Or $50 billion can be turned into 333 Boeing 737 MAXs or Airbus A321neo XLRs
        
        dealhunter52 on 02/07/2023 - 23:47
        
        +4
        
        @AircraftFreight: You don't build HSR looking at 5-10 years ahead, you build it looking at 50-100 years ahead. What was population of 3 major cities 50 years ago and what you think it would be 50 years from now? Thankfully people didn't had same thinking when harbour bridge was being built, otherwise they would had canned it for extra ferry service 😂.
        
        1st-Amendment on 03/07/2023 - 09:59
        
        @AircraftFreight:
        
        HSR in Australia is not economically viable, we are spaced too far apart from each other
        
        Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane are perfectly spaced for HSR. HSR works best at distances of up to about 1000km. At that distance it becomes quicker than flying once you take into account transfers and ingress/egress times.
        HSR also works best with cities over 2 million which ticks the box as well.
        
        and we wouldnt have enough people using it to make any profit in the near future.
        
        The larger the project the longer the ROI. So sure it wouldn't return value in the near term, but over 100 years it certainly would.
        
        $50 billion can rebuild… airport… airport… airport… airport…
        
        username checks out.
        
        Russ on 04/07/2023 - 11:20
        
        @1st-Amendment:
        
        HSR works best at distances of up to about 1000km.
        
        I'd like to see that, do you have a link?
        
        All I can find online are statements like "only one of the Japanese bullet train lines runs at a profit, the rest lose money". And those lines are shorter than 1000km.
        
        1st-Amendment on 04/07/2023 - 17:14
        
        @Russ:
        
        I'd like to see that, do you have a link?
        
        Have you been on one? I've been on a few in Europe and Asia in the 600-800km range and they all shit on flying as a means of travel for those distances. Sydney to Melbourne and Sydney to Brisbane are both under 800km, so same same.
        Shanghai to Beijing is about the limit of being competitive with flying and it's 1200km.
        
        Russ on 05/07/2023 - 00:04
        
        @1st-Amendment:
        
        Have you been on one?
        
        Yes, and I wouldn't do that route again. In 2011 I went from Paris to Milan on the TGV, and while peak speed was 300kph, the average speed over the journey was 100kph. Currently airline tickets are about double the price of the TGV, but the travel time is significantly shorter.
        
        I've dug through my emails, the TGV details were "Departs Paris 7.42am arrives Milan 2.50pm", so just over 7 hours. The plane journey is 90 minutes plus waiting at the airport, so even allowing for a taxi trip at each end, the plane is twice as fast.
        
        However, the private airlines doing that run make a profit, while the TGV (like almost every passenger railway worldwide) does not. In Australia, the only passenger service that makes a profit is Puffing Billy, and they charge about $60 per adult, for an 80km round journey. Any future high-speed rail links in Australia are extremely unlikely to be profitable, so they will not only consume taxpayer money during construction, they will need an ongoing subsidy forever.
        
        1st-Amendment on 05/07/2023 - 08:55
        
        @Russ:
        
        In 2011 I went from Paris to Milan on the TGV, and while peak speed was 300kph, the average speed over the journey was 100kph
        
        To be fair that isn't a great example since it's not HSR all the way. And that is likely due to the massive mountain range in-between the middle of those two cities which Australia doesn't have.
        
        The closest example I can think of off the top of my head Barcelona to Madrid which is only marginally shorter than Sydney to Melbourne, across similar terrain. That was 2:45hrs compared to 1:30hrs for flying. But once you add transit to and from airport, check-in times (On a train you can literally walk off the street in the centre of town 2 mins before departure), baggage allowances and collection etc, the train is quicker door to door. It also far more convenient, less subject to delay, much more comfortable, just a far better experience all around.
        
        So there is obviously a threshold of when HSR can't compete with flight, but that is generally considered to be around 1000kms or 4 hours, and it obviously only works between large cities that can satisfy the demand. Sydney to Melbourne certainly qualifies. Sydney to Brisbane is probably on the limit today, but if you look at growth rates, it certainly will be in another 10 years or so, and it will take longer than that to build.
        
        Australia are extremely unlikely to be profitable
        
        Profitability will depend heavily on the business model, and knowing how things work in Australia it will likely suck. So yeah it probably won't work here, but not becasue of the geography or population density, but because Australian politics makes everything 10x more expensive than it has to be.
        
        they will need an ongoing subsidy forever.
        
        Subsidies aren't a bad thing if they are used appropriately. I'd much rather a subsidy on HSR between Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane than subsidies wealthy people buying Teslas…
        
        CowFrogHorse on 20/07/2023 - 20:35
        
        @1st-Amendment: 1st: Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane are perfectly spaced for HSR. HSR works best at distances of up to about 1000km. At that distance it becomes quicker than flying once you take into account transfers and ingress/egress times.
        
        cow: Any transport flying or trains for those distances only encourages morons to do that for work commuting trips.
        
        DO you know how many people commuted from the central coast or wollonging to Sydney 30 years ago ? Today its tens of thousands or more, back then it was a fraction of that. Building all those freeways only made it worse.
        
        The answer is not enabling commuting over longer distances, the answer is to avoid travel and think of other alternatives for commuting… like minimizing commuting.
        
        1st-Amendment on 20/07/2023 - 20:36
        
        @CowFrogHorse:
        
        the answer is to avoid travel
        
        Cool story.
        
        Good luck taking that to the next election
        
        siinfekl on 03/07/2023 - 10:29
        
        @AircraftFreight: Thing is. You don't need a rail link if your train drops you off from city centre.
        Those planes you bought all depreciated over time while the train tracks cause regional centres to grow around them.
        
        CowFrogHorse on 04/07/2023 - 10:16
        
        @AircraftFreight: What makes you think improving efficiency at the airports is a good idea ?
        
        Is moving twice as many people thru the airport actually a win ?
        
        Do you want twice as many cars on the road ?
        
        Do people want twice as many planes in the air over them ?
        
        Nobody wins with bigger airports, all you do is turn your city in a massive traffic jam.
        
        Russ on 05/07/2023 - 00:38
        
        @CowFrogHorse:
        
        Nobody wins with bigger airports, all you do is turn your city in a massive traffic jam
        
        Well ideally, you would make a new airport that is only accessible by public transport, and your public transport cost is included in the price of your plane ticket. Then the airport could be well outside the urban area, and no traffic jams anywhere.
        
        However I think such forward thinking is unlikely in Australia. It is possible, for example Hong Kong International Airport is not accessible by private car: https://www.hongkongairport.com/en/transport/to-from-airport…
        
        Do people want twice as many planes in the air over them ?
        
        When I visited Paris, the sky was always a criss-cross pattern of contrails. The planes were so high up, I never heard any of them. Had it not been for the contrails, I would have been unaware of the number of planes above me.
        
        CowFrogHorse on 20/07/2023 - 20:42
        
        @Russ: russ: Well ideally, you would make a new airport that is only accessible by public transport, and your public transport cost is included in the price of your plane ticket. Then the airport could be well outside the urban area, and no traffic jams anywhere.
        
        cow: No ideally you wouldnt make an airport at all.
        
        Nobody wins by building a new airport, happy to debate this.
        
        The tax payer is paying $50B for the Sydney Airport. Thats a lot of Australians paying for something where the companies making the money from internaational travel are paying basically nothing. Let them pay for it.
        
        Russ: When I visited Paris, the sky was always a criss-cross pattern of contrails. The planes were so high up, I never heard any of them. Had it not been for the contrails, I would have been unaware of the number of planes above me.
        
        cow: You forgot to mention that Paris is a rat hole, full of people pissing everywhere not to mention all the other broken things there.
        
        Do you know what happens when you build airports ?
        
        More traffic, more people, more of YOUR time wasted commuting and traffic and i havent even started on the other depressing side effects.
        
        Russ on 04/07/2023 - 11:11
        
        @AircraftFreight: While aircraft are the profitable and faster solution, they are also the most difficult to convert to CO2-free energy.
        
        I look forward to the day I can don a VR suit at my home and be "present" (as a telepresence robot) at my workplace in another town. No travel needed to go to work.
        
        This has been partially done already at some underground mines, the miners stay in an air-conditioned shed above ground, and remotely operate the machinery underground.
      - mulder1989 on 03/07/2023 - 11:00
        
        @Russ: Lol, only $50b! How much does aukus cost ? $300b handed to Uncle Sam for Australia to become a nuclear Strick target?
    - CowFrogHorse on 03/07/2023 - 13:59
      
      -1
      
      Building more roads of all kinds or fast trains or fast hyperloops is the worst thing for Australia.
      
      The MORE transport infrastructure that is built the worse commuting becomes in all its shapes and forms.
      
      Travel time always goes up, just look at Sydney and Melbourne, they have both gained a lot of tunnels, roads, trains, light rail, call it whatever you want, the tie people waste on them only goes up.
      
      Who wants to travel from Brisbane to Melbourne every day for their job ?
      Do you really want to curse your kids to waste 4 - 5 hours a day on a fast anything from Melbourne to Port Macquarie for work ?
      
      THe answer is to close down all these dumb transport ideas, and enable people to work locally or from home as much as possible.
      
      Not only will this reduce pollution, all those roads and tracks arent free, they cost pollutions and billions which means again people have to work longer and pay more tax.
      - dealhunter52 on 03/07/2023 - 15:05
        
        +1
        
        @CowFrogHorse: Great…Let our our existing roads and infrastructure clog up without investment, while population increases.
        
        And your solution is that everyone just stay home. I wonder why no one had this genius idea before?
        
        CowFrogHorse on 04/07/2023 - 09:56
        
        -1
        
        @dealhunter52: barg: Great…Let our our existing roads and infrastructure clog up without investment, while population increases.
        
        cow:
        
        Can you actually share a single example where building more roads, trains and other modes of transport reduces travel time ?
        
        Pick any city on earth where more infrastructure actually saves people time ?
        
        Sydney has gained a lot of tunnels, freeways, metros and more, has travel time for people actually gone down or gotten worse ?
        
        You dont grasp the basic problem, the more you build the further and longer people travel. Infrastructure doesnt make things better, never has it makes things worse, its called induced demand. The more roads for example that you build, the lazier people get and the more they drive.
        
        ~
        
        barg: And your solution is that everyone just stay home.
        cow: Did i say everyone ?
        
        ~
        
        barg: I wonder why no one had this genius idea before?
        
        cow: Heres a clue employers are not your friend and they arent paying for everyones wasted time in traffic or trains - so they dont care.
        
        Do i really have to tell you the obvious ?
        
        1st-Amendment on 05/07/2023 - 08:59
        
        @CowFrogHorse:
        
        Can you actually share a single example where building more roads, trains and other modes of transport reduces travel time ?
        
        MTR in Hong Kong and MRT in Singapore
        
        You dont grasp the basic problem, the more you build the further and longer people travel. Infrastructure doesnt make things better, never has it makes things worse, its called induced demand.
        
        Not always true. It is true for a lot of things, but in the examples above, if you design a city to handle high density you can increase efficiency while also increasing demand. We don't do it very well here, but it is possible.
        
        CowFrogHorse on 14/07/2023 - 20:07
        
        @1st-Amendment: cow: Can you actually share a single example where building more roads, trains and other modes of transport reduces travel time ?
        
        1st: MTR in Hong Kong and MRT in Singapore
        
        cow: Those examples are not success. People packed like sardines for hours a day sitting at stations, trains and busses is not success.
        
        HK is a shithole, its a giant filthy carpark.
        
        People in HK are still wasting hours a week on trains, ferries, busses and more. Maybe its more efficient than for example Sydney, they are still wasting hours. 2 hours a day is still bad, even if is 3 hours in other places.
      - Nom on 03/07/2023 - 18:56
        
        -1
        
        @CowFrogHorse:
        
        close down all these dumb transport ideas, and enable people to work locally or from home as much as possible.
        
        Er, what about the other gazillion careers that are not office jobs ? How is your plumber ever going to work from home ?
        
        CowFrogHorse on 04/07/2023 - 09:50
        
        @Nom: Should everyone wear a gas mask and other mining safety equipment just because some people in a mine somewhere in Australia require those items ?
        
        Should everyone in Australia wear diving equipment because some jobs like divers require them ?
        
        Nom on 04/07/2023 - 10:52
        
        @CowFrogHorse: Precisely.
        
        You're suggesting that we don't need transport ideas, just because office workers can work remotely.
        
        We absolutely still need transport ideas, because there's a giant number of professions that can't work remotely.
        
        CowFrogHorse on 04/07/2023 - 12:29
        
        @Nom: nom: You're suggesting that we don't need transport ideas, just because office workers can work remotely.
        
        cow:
        Anyone doing any analysis of any problem must always consider do nothing. Surgeons always consider doing nothing as an option, etc.
        
        I am giving transport ideas. There are plenty of options including building MORE tunnels, MORE trains, MORE roads, there are also other options like cutting down on travel and finding alternatives.
        
        There is no prize for having everyone travel as far as possible for every job. Can you grasp that ?
        
        nom: We absolutely still need transport ideas, because there's a giant number of professions that can't work remotely.
        
        cow: And a large can work remotely.
        
        A large number of people are always travelling crazy distances because bosses dont care because its not costing them any money or their time.
        
        Why cant you think of options to minimize travel ?
        
        Minimize also means zero travel where possible. There is NO PRIZE for having everyone waste 2 - 4 hours a day in traffic or trains because because because…
        
        Do you really think the current state of commuting and travel in big cities like Sydney is a smart path ? Nobody in all the world has ever made a transport system where everyone in the city is travelling distances like what we see in Sydney. Feel free to name a single city on earth where they have won, and i will also reply that there 100s that are a failure, from LA, to London to NYC, to Sao Paolo, Moscow, Paris, Berlin, Tokyo and more. Is it smart to bet in a game where 99 out of 100 always lose ?
        
        For example why waste tens of billions building a metro to the Sydney CBD ? Yes its saving a few jobs, but at what cost ? WHy spend $20B to save a few thousand jobs ? Is it smart for the government to spend that much money to keep a few coffee shops and insurance buildings in the city ? WOUldnt it be smarter to put the insurance building and government office in a better place to minimize travel ? As a bonus it would save $20B .. and save everyone time.
        
        Its bloody stupid to spend $20B to save 3000 jobs, each job is costing tax payers a million… is that smart ?
        
        1st-Amendment on 05/07/2023 - 09:07
        
        @CowFrogHorse:
        
        Anyone doing any analysis of any problem must always consider do nothing.
        
        Thanks for mentioning this, it is one of the the most overlooked aspects of any decision process. Quite often the 'do nothing' option is actually better, but busy-bodies always feel the need to 'do something', and this comes at a huge cost.
        
        Do you really think the current state of commuting and travel in big cities like Sydney is a smart path ?
        
        Sydney (and Australia) suffers too much from the political self-interest. This was one driver behind council mergers, ie it was impossible to get anything done with 43 different local councils in one city. Now we have 33, it's still 32 too many.
        
        CowFrogHorse on 05/07/2023 - 11:02
        
        @1st-Amendment: 1st: Sydney (and Australia) suffers too much from the political self-interest. This was one driver behind council mergers, ie it was impossible to get anything done with 43 different local councils in one city. Now we have 33, it's still 32 too many.
        
        cow: Unfortunately thats life, the same is true of every city around the planet.
        
        You cant just ignore these basic problems and pretend everything will be perfect just because. As ive said before the opposite is true, every single city on the planet has commuting and travel problems. Many have built lots of trains and metros (London, NYC, Paris, Singapore, Tokyo etc) or roads and tunnels for cars (LA etc) and they are all shithole failures.
        
        So im simply asking WHY follow a path that has failed 100s of times thinking it will be different. Thats the very definition of stupidity.
        
        1st-Amendment on 05/07/2023 - 11:13
        
        @CowFrogHorse:
        
        every single city on the planet has commuting and travel problems.
        
        Cool. Perfect is the enemy of good, just because something isn't perfect in every way doesn't mean you just give up completely.
        
        and pretend everything will be perfect just because
        
        I didn't. Where do you think I said that?
        
        and they are all shithole failures
        
        Having been to all six of the places you mentioned, including living in one them for a couple of years, I don't consider any of them a 'failure'. I was able to navigate around each of those cities with ease, much easier than some place with no infrastructure where I'd have to walk everywhere.
        They aren't perfect, and each has their own set of unique challenges, but they beat any alternative you can name, hence why tens of millions of people choose to live in these places
        
        So im simply asking WHY follow a path that has failed 100s of times thinking it will be different. Thats the very definition of stupidity.
        
        Stupid would be to claim failure without defining what that actually means.
        You also haven't defined what the 'path' actually is. Nor have you provided any alternatives so we can compare.
        
        Assume you are made King of Sydney with full dictator powers over all infrastructure, what would you do to improve the situation?
        
        CowFrogHorse on 05/07/2023 - 17:31
        
        -1
        
        @1st-Amendment: 1st: please use names when you quote, indentation doesnt work after multiple levels of replies.
        
        ~
        
        cow: every single city on the planet has commuting and travel problems.
        
        1st: Cool. Perfect is the enemy of good, just because something isn't perfect in every way doesn't mean you just give up completely.
        
        cow: Perfect ? Please stop being an extremist i never demanded or implied that every example city had to be perfect.
        
        ~
        
        cow: and pretend everything will be perfect just because
        
        1st: I didn't. Where do you think I said that?
        
        cow: So why do you think commuting works ?
        
        Can you name a single example from a major world city of a million people or more where a large proportion of people commute where their solution actually is acceptable ?
        
        For starters, every single state capital city in Australia is a failure, and commuting is getting worse as the years go by. Sydney, Melb, Bris, Adel, Perth are all failures.
        
        They also have all in past years continued to build and invest in more trains and roads etc, and the problem gets worse. What does that teach us ?
        
        Do you want me to visit the cities of Europe, Americas, Asia and Africa and make a longer list ?
        
        Put some effort, give me 3 examples where commuting is improving for a large portion of the peoples who commute in that city. Lets be honest here, im talking a solution that helps 1/4 of a 1/2 of a million people city.
        
        ~
        
        cow: So im simply asking WHY follow a path that has failed 100s of times thinking it will be different. Thats the very definition of stupidity.
        
        1st: Stupid would be to claim failure without defining what that actually means.
        
        cow: So you cant see what is happening every day in all our big cities ?
        
        Do i really need to write an essay to highlight all the time people are wasting in traffic and trains every day in our state capitals ?
        
        Do i also need to tell you the sky is blue ?
        
        Spending an hour or more commuting in any form every day, with the time increasing as the years go by for the average person is my definition of failure.
        
        ~
        
        1st: Assume you are made King of Sydney with full dictator powers over all infrastructure, what would you do to improve the situation?
        
        cow: i would stop all investment projects in roads and tunnels. You dont understand making more trains for example means people travel further and further it doesnt improve anything it makes it worse.
        
        When i was a kid, most kids in my school walked to school, and guess what there were basically no fat kids. Today there are fat kids everywhere and lazy parents who take the easy option because they can. Kids who would have walked are now being driven.
        
        You dont appreciate that building more roads means you are feeding the problem and making it worse.
        
        There are many ideas that can help.
        
        For example big businesses like banks are everywhere they should be penalized for making employees not work at the closest possible location as much as possible. Is it a perfect solution no its not, but its a start. Having employees of the CommBank travel from Penrith to work in Bondi and others in Bondi travel halfway to Penrith is not smart. This same stupidity exists in many other businesses.
        
        I would slowly introduce a penalty where employers are given the opportunity to minimize employee travel as per the example i shared with banks, if they dont i would force them to pay employees for their travel time. You can be sure in a few weeks the CommBank will shuffle people about and lots of people would be saving time from travel. This would cut down. many cars and trains. is it perfect no, but its a start.
        
        Replace commbank, with woolies, kmart, grace bros, schools, hospitals etc thats a lot of travel saved.
        
        SBOB on 05/07/2023 - 17:48
        
        @CowFrogHorse:
        
        please use names when you quote, indentation doesnt work after multiple levels of replies.
        
        its exactly how it works
        the response shows the user and the indent shows their quotes
        
        Your response format is particularly unreadable, and thats before even getting to its content
        
        CowFrogHorse on 05/07/2023 - 17:54
        
        -1
        
        @SBOB: SBOB:Your response format is particularly unreadable,
        
        Cow: Works for court manuscripts but i guess you know more than them about accurate and clear records of communication.
        
        SBOBS: and thats before even getting to its content
        
        Cow: really ? YOua re going to sink that low and name call because you cant remotely reply to anything i have actually said ?
        
        CowFrogHorse on 05/07/2023 - 17:58
        
        -1
        
        @SBOB: sbob: Your response format is particularly unreadable, and thats before even getting to its content
        
        cow: the reason for quoting the other person with their name is because a large number of people are dishonest and make shit up pretending the other person said that very thing. Just look at your comment below..
        
        “`
        SBOB 4 hours 26 min ago
        @CowFrogHorse:
        
        So im simply asking WHY follow a path that has failed 100s of times thinking it will be different. Thats the very definition of stupidity.
        
        unless you're calling for a depopulation policy, I dont see you having a solution.
        ““
        
        You didnt and cant quote me for about depopulation because i have never implied or even used that word at all.
        
        1st-Amendment on 06/07/2023 - 09:31
        
        +1
        
        @CowFrogHorse:
        
        please use names when you quote, indentation doesnt work after multiple levels of replies.
        
        It works better than whatever is you are doing. You format makes no sense… much like your crazy suggestions…
        
        Did you ever stop and think, maybe it's not the whole world that is crazy, maybe it's just you?
        
        CowFrogHorse on 06/07/2023 - 14:39
        
        -1
        
        @1st-Amendment: 1st: It works better than whatever is you are doing. You format makes no sense… much like your crazy suggestions…
        
        cow: the legal profession, movies, newspapers for example are scripted using the formula im suggesting.
        
        I guess you know better than them right ?
        
        1st-Amendment on 08/07/2023 - 15:03
        
        @CowFrogHorse:
        
        the legal profession, movies, newspapers for example are scripted using the formula im suggesting.
        
        No they don't. I used to work for a law firm, they do no such thing.
        Movie scripts are for character to read their lines, not for open debate.
        And Newspapers do no such thin either.
        
        You are living in kookoo land if you think this…
        
        CowFrogHorse on 14/07/2023 - 20:14
        
        @1st-Amendment: cow: the legal profession, movies, newspapers for example are scripted using the formula im suggesting.
        
        1st: No they don't. I used to work for a law firm, they do no such thing.
        
        cow: Proof ?
        
        So we have to accept your claim because you say so.. Thats not how evidence works.
        
        Police will write down exactly what you say and ask you to sign. In court a stenographer will write down what each person says during a court case.
        
        1st: Movie scripts are for character to read their lines, not for open debate.
        
        cow: Yet again you cant comprehend the value of why names before comments is valuable. is about making it easy to track who said what.
        
        1st: And Newspapers do no such thin either.
        
        cow:
        https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-66151103
        
        On 1 June a Federal Court judge threw out the case against The Age, The Sydney Morning Herald, and The Canberra Times, ruling it was "substantially true" that Mr Roberts-Smith had murdered unarmed Afghan prisoners and civilians and bullied fellow soldiers
        
        That sentence gives the name, date and then what was said.
        
        Justice Anthony Besanko also found that Mr Roberts-Smith lied to cover up his misconduct and threatened witnesses.
        
        Again name and what they said.
        
        In 2020, a landmark investigation known as the Brereton Report found "credible evidence" that elite Australian soldiers unlawfully killed 39 people in Afghanistan.
        
        Again another statement and who is responsible for that thought.
        
        The only person who doesnt want exact statements and attribution is someone who invents and lies,…and we all know who makes shit up without quotes. aka you.
        
        -
        
        1st:
        You are living in kookoo land if you think this…
        
        cow:
        Wow sh
        
        1st-Amendment on 15/07/2023 - 15:25
        
        @CowFrogHorse:
        
        So we have to accept your claim because you say so.. Thats not how evidence works.
        
        Maybe think a little harder before writing so you don't keep making a fool of yourself.
        
        It is YOU making the claim. Remember this:
        
        the legal profession, movies, newspapers for example are scripted using the formula im suggesting
        
        Claim, evidence. Work it out.
        
        That sentence gives the name, date and then what was said.
        
        This is not the same stupid format you are using. Are you that brain dead that you can't tell the difference between the two?
        
        we all know who makes shit up without quotes
        
        Lol, Another demonstration that you can't read. You can easily see the quotes I provided because unlike some crackpot format that you invented yourself that no-one else uses, I've used the block-quotes provided by this website for every quote. This format is used by everyone here. Do you even understand what a block-quote is? It's not my fault that you can't work this simple concept out. Everyone else except you seems to be fine with it.
        
        I thought this conversation couldn't get any dumber, yet here you are…Imagine coming back after ten days to embarrass yourself like this. Did it take you ten days to try and find some 'evidence' of your ridiculous claim only to provide something that doesn't even match it?
        
        This has been hilarious, but it's clear that you really have no idea and you're wasting my time…
        
        CowFrogHorse on 20/07/2023 - 18:59
        
        @1st-Amendment: 1st: Claim, evidence. Work it out.
        
        cow: Spoken like a true fraud, you claim a lot but you NEVER produce evidence. You always call the other person names, and tell them to look for themselves.
        
        Its strange because Newton and Einstein for example wrote plenty of papers and books to share their evidence, but you like a the fake and liar that you are, call people names.
        
        ~
        
        1st: Lol, Another demonstration that you can't read. You can easily see the quotes I provided because unlike some crackpot format that you invented yourself that no-one else uses, I've used the block-quotes provided by this website for every quote.
        
        cow: Yet again you are too pathetic to understand that after multiple levels of replies chunks of text without names is broken.
        
        1st: This format is used by everyone here
        
        cow: So what if it is ?
        
        THe masses are not always right, do i really have to give examples ?
        
        Scientific evidence is not a popularity contest, it requires evidence, which yet again you cant comprehend. When Sir Isaac Newton wrote his book the Principica
        
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophi%C3%A6_Naturalis_Pri…
        
        When he published that book it is said something like only 5 - 6 people actually had half a clue and basically nobody understood the maths, but i guess Sir Isaac must be wrong, because he was out numbered…
        
        1st: I thought this conversation couldn't get any dumber, yet here you are…Imagine coming back after ten days to embarrass yourself like this. Did it take you ten days to try and find some 'evidence' of your ridiculous claim only to provide something that doesn't even match it?
        
        cow: Like a true loser, you always have time to demostrate the only capability that you have, to call people names becaus eyou dont have the capability to write anything meaningful.
        
        I pity your family living with a loser like yourself who only calls people names.
        
        1st-Amendment on 20/07/2023 - 19:37
        
        @CowFrogHorse: You:
        
        So we have to accept your claim because you say so.. Thats not how evidence works
        
        Also you:
        
        Scientific evidence is not a popularity contest, it requires evidence
        
        Also you:
        
        do i really have to give examples?
        
        You should at least read your own posts before replying…
        
        CowFrogHorse on 20/07/2023 - 20:32
        
        @1st-Amendment: 1st: You should at least read your own posts before replying…
        
        cow: Here we go the talk of the loser, not once have you actually challenged my statements… all. you can manage to do is call names.
        
        Like i said befor eyou refuse to quote me, because you prefer to lie and make statements about words i have never said.
        
        Go up and fine something i said, quote me, and if you can manage challenge my statements or thoughts.
        
        That is of course if you can write something at that level, but hey pigs dont fly because they cant, and you yet again call people names because thats all you can do.
        
        SBOB on 05/07/2023 - 13:29
        
        @CowFrogHorse:
        
        So im simply asking WHY follow a path that has failed 100s of times thinking it will be different. Thats the very definition of stupidity.
        
        unless you're calling for a depopulation policy, I dont see you having a solution.
        
        CowFrogHorse on 05/07/2023 - 17:12
        
        @SBOB: SBOBS: unless you're calling for a depopulation policy, I dont see you having a solution.
        
        Cow: I never implied or mentioned depopulation or anything remotely similar. Im simply stating that of all the options to solve travel, building more infrastructure is the WORSE possible solution.
        
        Its a collosal waste of money, to build, and it will make for people with uncount medical problems both now and in the future because of the unhealthy lifestyle mass travel and commuting creates. It also creates an enormous amount of pollution, which again means the destroying the environment which prpvides the air we breath, food we eaat and water we drink.
        
        There is nothing smart about thinking mostly everyone has to commute, its the dumbest idea possible.
  - Jazstar on 03/07/2023 - 09:22
    
    +1
    
    You think giving the government more money will help? I mean look at this policy they’re literally taxing us all then buying votes in key areas with our money to subdivide toll companies. If you can’t see how giving them more money is a bad idea then you mustn’t be paying much tax.
    - 1st-Amendment on 03/07/2023 - 10:02
      
      If you can’t see how giving them more money is a bad idea then you mustn’t be paying much tax.
      
      It's one the of the negative side-effects of the welfare state. You breed a large cohort of dependents who see the government as the solution to all of their problems
      - CowFrogHorse on 06/07/2023 - 14:50
        
        @1st-Amendment: As opposed to America, where the media and society worships the biggest arseholes in the country ?
        
        Do you know why they have no free healthcare in America ?
        
        Because trump and his religious friends who goto church every weekend, would rather not help the government give free healthcare to others, even if they personally end up paying far more in insurance and other health care costs.
        
        Then again these are the same people who also didnt want blacks in schools with whites, and gave their lives to support rich land owners in the American civil war.
        
        Doesnt get dumber than that…volunteer to die so some rich arsehole can keep his slaves….
        
        Life isnt perfect, but its better to have a welfare state than the crime hellhole that is America.
        
        1st-Amendment on 07/07/2023 - 08:25
        
        @CowFrogHorse:
        
        Do you know why they have no free healthcare in America ?
        
        No country has free healthcare. Someone, somewhere is always paying for it. Do you understand how things work?
        
        Then again these are the same people who also didnt want blacks in schools with whites,
        
        You might want to look up your history there before you make a fool of yourself. In the Civil war, the slave owners were the Democrat South, and Lincoln who was Republican fought for equal rights.
        After the Civil War it was Democrats that formed the KKK,
        And the Jim Crow laws were yet another attempt by the Democrats for apartheid.
        
        Now in Australia it is the Labor party that wants to introduce apartheid here with the Voice.
        
        Your post highlights the ignorance of people brought up with a public education…
        
        Doesnt get dumber than that
        
        Indeed…
        
        but its better to have a welfare state than the crime hellhole that is America.
        
        So there's only two possible options? Interesting thought process… did you go to a public school?
        
        SBOB on 07/07/2023 - 11:27
        
        @1st-Amendment:
        
        You might want to look up your history there before you make a fool of yourself. In the Civil war, the slave owners were the Democrat South, and Lincoln who was Republican fought for equal rights.
        
        Might want to look up your history there also though, before you make a fool of yourself.
        The parties then were not 'Democratic' and 'Republican', and did not align with what now passes for parties of those names.
        
        Anyone comparing political parties of the 1800's with parties of today for some kind of 'analogy' or comparison is doing so out of delusion, misinformation, or blind devotion.
        
        1st-Amendment on 07/07/2023 - 15:41
        
        @SBOB:
        
        Might want to look up your history there also though, before you make a fool of yourself.
        
        Lol, this is going to be fun….
        
        The parties then were not 'Democratic' and 'Republican',
        
        Democrat party was founded in the 1830's the Republican's in the 1850's. So yes they actually were. Oopsy…
        
        Anyone comparing political parties of the 1800's with parties of today…
        
        Cool story. OP did this, I merely corrected the record.
        If you need an example closer to the present day, Joe Biden actively voted against desegregation measures as a Senator in the 1970's.
        
        Which statement have I made that is false?
        
        CowFrogHorse on 07/07/2023 - 19:31
        
        -1
        
        @SBOB: SBOB: Anyone comparing political parties of the 1800's with parties of today for some kind of 'analogy' or comparison is doing so out of delusion, misinformation, or blind devotion.
        
        cow: as opposed to someone who only insults and never "shares" their wisdom because they are too lazy to write something useful or knoweldge buliding.
        
        CowFrogHorse on 07/07/2023 - 19:27
        
        -2
        
        @1st-Amendment: cow: Do you know why they have no free healthcare in America ?
        
        1st: No country has free healthcare. Someone, somewhere is always paying for it. Do you understand how things work?
        
        cow: Typical american answer.
        
        You know very well what free healthcare in my sentence means. Stop being miserable and stay in the spirit of the conversation.
        
        1st: You might want to look up your history there before you make a fool of yourself. In the Civil war, the slave owners were the Democrat South, and Lincoln who was Republican fought for equal rights.
        
        cow: I never mentioned Democratic or Republican in my summary. The American south back in the 1860s was the equivalent to the values and demographics of the Republican party today. THe names got swapped the values didnt.
        
        1st: After the Civil War it was Democrats that formed the KKK,
        And the Jim Crow laws were yet another attempt by the Democrats for apartheid.
        
        cow: Did i mention Democratic or Republican ? You need to read more carefully what i said and not to invent words i never wrote.
        
        I was pointing out American values and how those connect with the today.
        
        1st-Amendment on 08/07/2023 - 14:39
        
        @CowFrogHorse:
        
        You know very well what free healthcare in my sentence means
        
        Unlike you I don't make assumptions. Does it mean you don't understand how healthcare is funded? Because Healthcare is not free, I pay a considerable amount in medicare levies and insurance, then when I use a provider I pay again. This doesn't fit any definition of free that I've heard of before. Please feel free to enlighten us on how you think paying money for something makes it 'free'?
        
        THe names got swapped the values didnt.
        
        Lol, when facts disagree with your opinion, just make stuff up!
        When did 'swap' this happen specifically in your mind? Please give a specific year so we may look it up.
        Democrats have always been race-hustlers and they still are today. Just look at Biden's policy of picking his staff based purely on race and sex. It's the same old race hustling since the slave days.
        
        You need to read more carefully what i said and not to invent words i never wrote.
        
        I was relying to SBOB, it even says that in my reply. Maybe read more carefully what i said and not to invent words etc… lol
        
        I was pointing out American values and how those connect with the today.
        
        So was I. American Conservatives have always had the same values, hence the name. From Lincoln to Roosevelt, to Eisenhower to Reagan to Trump it's the same values for 180 years. The fact that you don't this shows that you are a product or poor education and/or left wing media view of the world.
        
        CowFrogHorse on 07/07/2023 - 19:29
        
        -2
        
        @1st-Amendment: 1st: Now in Australia it is the Labor party that wants to introduce apartheid here with the Voice.
        
        cow: Did i mention the Labor party ?
        
        Feel free to quote where i mentioned the Labor party.
        
        1st: Your post highlights the ignorance of people brought up with a public education…
        
        cow: I never used the word Labor, Republican or Democrat and yet you invented several claims that i did…
        
        Either you cant read or you are dishonest.
        
        Lik ei said before its important that you QUOTE what the other person says, because as you have shown people make shit up, just like you have here several times.
        
        1st-Amendment on 08/07/2023 - 15:06
        
        @CowFrogHorse:
        
        Feel free to quote where i mentioned the Labor party.
        
        I mentioned it, you can see this because it's in my post. Can you even read?
        
        Like i said before its important that you QUOTE what the other person says, because as you have shown people make shit up, just like you have here several times.
        
        I have. All the quotes have a > indent. I can't help you if you can't read…
  - DrScavenger on 04/07/2023 - 07:25
    
    At least don't remove the low and middle income tax offset ffs
- belongsinforums on 02/07/2023 - 18:00
  
  i dont see the problem. the majority of NSW voted for a liberal government. so you have a liberal government. and theyre doing typical liberal things like giving money to rich people.
  - dealhunter52 on 02/07/2023 - 18:26
    
    +8
    
    Liberals or Labor, they both the same. Labor hasn't backed down from Stage 3 tax cuts or repealing negative gearing. Most of these ministers have vested interests and they only care about their finances, not the nation.
    
    Here's Labor Minister Michelle Ananda-Rajah caught out on live TV owning multiple properties (7 in total including her residence), while defending negative gearing.
    
    Apparently, we lose $20 billion to negative gearing and capital gain concessions to wealthy Australians every year. That's some food for thought.
    - Ghost47 on 02/07/2023 - 18:48
      
      +4
      
      Labor wanted to reform negative gearing back in 2016 and 2019, but they've completely given up and gone the other way since most Aussies voted against it.
      
      If they were voted in back then maybe things would be very different today. Labor are basically Liberal-lite now.
      - dealhunter52 on 02/07/2023 - 18:51
        
        @Ghost47: They have never been in more commanding position to do it than today. They are in power in the centre and all the states, except one.
        
        Ghost47 on 02/07/2023 - 18:52
        
        +1
        
        @dealhunter52: I agree but I don't think they will sadly.
    - Actionman77 on 02/07/2023 - 20:02
      
      @Bargainian, Pales in comparison to the $191 billion (well) spent on social welfare.
      Food for thought.
      - dealhunter52 on 02/07/2023 - 20:30
        
        @Actionman77:
        
        Pales in comparison to the $191 billion (well) spent on social welfare.
        
        Only small section of Australians will benefit from $44 billion subsidy to wealthy ($20 billion in negative gearing & capital gain tax concession + $24 billion/year in stage 3 tax cuts).
        
        While large section of Australians benefit from $191 billion social welfare including wealthy, for example, childcare subsidy etc.
    - Brianqpr on 02/07/2023 - 23:27
      
      +2
      
      Labor tried to go to an election with changes to negative gearing. They got screamed down by the Murdoch press and idiots voted for Morrison. Therefore they won't touch it now
    - belongsinforums on 03/07/2023 - 00:20
      
      I agree. Shit party and shit lite party
  - dealhunter52 on 02/07/2023 - 18:55
    
    Also, for your knowledge, we don't have a liberal govt in NSW, not since March this year.
  - AircraftFreight on 02/07/2023 - 19:30
    
    This is a labor government lmfao
  - Jazstar on 03/07/2023 - 09:19
    
    Labor is the government in NSW though.
  - 1st-Amendment on 03/07/2023 - 10:27
    
    +1
    
    the majority of NSW voted for a liberal government. so you have a liberal government. and theyre doing typical liberal things like giving money to rich people.
    
    You are the reason lefties are never taken seriously. You don't even know the government you trying to criticise.
- Ugly on 02/07/2023 - 18:14
  
  +4
  
  So, poor people don’t use toll roads to go to work?
  
  According to the government, the highest rebate areas are “Kellyville, Rouse Hill, Baulkham Hills, Westmead and Liverpool, as they are the ones doing the most travelling on toll roads.”
  
  Those areas are not exactly known for being high-income areas.
  - dealhunter52 on 02/07/2023 - 18:34
    
    Have you ever checked our Sydney's map?
    
    Of course they are doing the most travelling because these are the areas that are some of the most densely populated and farthest from the City or the airport, compared to affluent north eastern areas like Newport, Manly, Bondi etc. Do you think everyone living in the suburbs that you mentioned lives on minimum wage?
    - Icecold5000 on 02/07/2023 - 18:43
      
      It’s all good. If those living in richer areas who want childcare then they’ll just have to pay more to attract workers who live in the west that cannot afford the commute. either that or enjoy their toddlers interrupting their teams calls
    - Ugly on 03/07/2023 - 06:54
      
      Subsidy for rich
      
      Now it’s:
      
      compared to affluent north eastern areas like Newport, Manly, Bondi etc.
      
      So you’re contradicting your original post that it’s a subsidy for the rich?
      - dealhunter52 on 03/07/2023 - 08:31
        
        @Ugly:
        
        Do you think everyone living in the suburbs that you mentioned lives on minimum wage?
        
        Not contradicting.
- merriweather on 02/07/2023 - 18:52
  
  +1
  
  Having lived most of my life in Victoria and moved to NSW recently I’m astounded by the amount of cash the NSW government just hands out for random stuff. This one seems particularly odd.
  - Ghost47 on 02/07/2023 - 18:55
    
    I’m astounded by the amount of cash the NSW government just hands out for random stuff.
    
    What kind of handouts are you talking about?
    - merriweather on 02/07/2023 - 18:56
      
      All the random vouchers I get through the service NSW app. Food and drink vouchers, back to school vouchers, swimming lessons. All sorts of odd stuff.
      - merriweather on 02/07/2023 - 18:57
        
        +1
        
        @merriweather: Maybe that kind of thing happened in Victoria and I just never knew because there’s not a single app where you can find them all.
        
        1st-Amendment on 03/07/2023 - 10:31
        
        @merriweather:
        
        and I just never knew because there’s not a single app where you can find them all.
        
        This is most likely the reason. One the problems identified years ago was the size of government and all the various things they do that no-one knows about. The SNSW App was an attempt to consolidate that into a single customer oriented app. And once you use it and get used it then go to other states it feels like moving back to the stone age.
      - Ghost47 on 02/07/2023 - 18:58
        
        @merriweather: I see. I was in Sydney for a while and all that really stood out to me were the vouchers for COVID, although I never really used the Service NSW app much.
        
        Wonder if all that stuff is due to Labor being in power now.
      - mulder1989 on 03/07/2023 - 11:02
        
        @merriweather: I'd trade them for more public holidays!
  - Jazstar on 03/07/2023 - 09:21
    
    They’re only handing back taxpayer money after all.
  - DrScavenger on 04/07/2023 - 07:27
    
    And Vic hoards them for their useless stuff
  - CowFrogHorse on 04/07/2023 - 09:59
    
    Yes its genius, every dollar the government gives out costs everyone including the receipt many times over.
    
    Today they give you one dollar, tomorrow they tax you 10 for the rest of your life, its genius.
    
    Secondly this gift only rewards stupidity, having everyone drive for hours a day is completely stupid and often unnecessary. Sitting in a car for 2 - 4 hours a day isnt productive in any form. It makes people unwell both mentally and physically which of course will mean more medicare bills when they are fat, sick and unwell.
- gfjh567gh3 on 03/07/2023 - 00:39
  
  +2
  
  I agree on the first part, but not sure how you turned this into a rich vs poor thing
  
  The Government subsiding toll providers is ridiculous
  - dealhunter52 on 03/07/2023 - 00:49
    
    It's not about rich vs poor, but about subsidies for wealthy.
    
    P.S. I'm fairly well off and stand to benefit from Stage 3 tax cuts, but I don't think that's in the best interest of the nation. Those $254 billion over 10 years could be used for improving things like infrastructure, education and public healthcare or even defence spending.
- Jazstar on 03/07/2023 - 09:20
  
  +2
  
  This is a massive subsidy to private companies operating these toll roads. It’s such an insane way to spend money they should instead negotiate a shorter time till the toll is removed.
  - dealhunter52 on 03/07/2023 - 09:31
    
    +1
    
    Yes, agreed.
    
    But in reality exact opposite of what you propose is happening. For example, M2/M7 motorway toll was suppose to end in 2042 originally, but got extended to 2046, then 2048 and now 2051.
    - CowFrogHorse on 04/07/2023 - 10:05
      
      You can be sure that toll companies will never put the price down, becaue they know people will pay and the government will give the public more money to spend on tolls.
      
      If people have. more money for your product or service why woul dyou put the price down if they are a captive audience.
- 1st-Amendment on 03/07/2023 - 09:33
  
  -1
  
  Subsidy for rich and businesses,
  
  Lol, do you understand how tax works?
  
  Just like negative gearing and stage 3 tax cuts.
  
  That'd be a no then…
  - dealhunter52 on 03/07/2023 - 09:55
    
    Thanks for sharing your wisdom as I'm novice in economics.
    
    Please enlighten me how nearly $50 billion/year (stage 3 tax cuts and negative gearing) is better off with wealthy Australians, than being used on improving infrastructure, defence, Health and education or even to pay off Australian national debt.
    - 1st-Amendment on 03/07/2023 - 10:21
      
      -1
      
      Please enlighten me how nearly $50 billion/year (stage 3 tax cuts and negative gearing) is better off with wealthy Australians, than being used on improving infrastructure, defence, Health and education or even to pay off Australian national debt.
      
      Because simply increasing tax doesn't always increase overall tax revenue: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve
      
      If you want to learn more then I recommend this book: https://www.amazon.com.au/Basic-Economics-Thomas-Sowell/dp/0…
      - dealhunter52 on 03/07/2023 - 11:05
        
        +1
        
        @1st-Amendment: So instead of answering my simple question you send me some links. Did you even read the links you sent me?
        
        Following is from your link:
        
        As popularized by supply-side economist Arthur Laffer, the curve is typically represented as a graph that starts at 0% tax with zero revenue, rises to a maximum rate of revenue at an intermediate rate of taxation, and then falls again to zero revenue at a 100% tax rate. However, the shape of the curve is uncertain and disputed among economists.
        
        However, the hypothetical maximum revenue point of the Laffer curve for any given market cannot be observed directly and can only be estimated—such estimates are often controversial. According to The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, estimates of revenue-maximizing income tax rates have varied widely, with a mid-range of around 70%.
        
        How did you assume Australia has overshot the Laffer curve, when even the top economists are not sure what the optimum level is?
        
        1st-Amendment on 03/07/2023 - 11:52
        
        -1
        
        @dealhunter52:
        
        So instead of answering my simple question you send me some links
        
        The links answered your question. You even used those links to defend your position. Pick a lane…
        
        How did you assume Australia has overshot the Laffer curve
        
        Where did I assume that? Looks like it is you making the assumptions here…
        
        I merely pointed out that higher taxes do not necessarily correspond to higher tax revenue, as you implied.
        
        dealhunter52 on 03/07/2023 - 11:54
        
        +1
        
        @1st-Amendment:
        
        The links answered your question. You even used those links to defend your position.
        
        No it didn't answer my question. Let me repeat.
        
        Please enlighten me how nearly $50 billion/year (stage 3 tax cuts and negative gearing) is better off with wealthy Australians, than being used on improving infrastructure, defence, Health and education or even to pay off Australian national debt?
        
        1st-Amendment on 03/07/2023 - 12:08
        
        -1
        
        @dealhunter52:
        
        No it didn't answer my question.
        
        It did, you've just failed to grasp it, hence proving my original point.
        I also included a link to a book that would help you understand why you can't simply tax your way out of debt.
        
        Please enlighten me how nearly $50 billion/year (stage 3 tax cuts and negative gearing) is better off with wealthy Australians
        
        The point which you even made yourself in your reply to me is that how do you know where the peak of the Laffer curve is? If you don't know where it is then how can you say with any confidence if any change is good or bad. This is simple logic.
        
        But it sounds like you're not really interested in learning anything, stick with the slogans 'tax the rich!' and see how that works out instead…

[NSW] Toll Relief Rebate, Up to $750 (2022~2023) or $802 (2023~2024) @ Service NSW

Related Stores

Comments

Top Deals

New Deals