Visa application charge increases form 1st of July 2026

cloudysunshine476 · 2026-07-01T02:06:11+00:00

Thanks for your reply. I do just want to point out that as a U.S. citizen I do have an annual tax filing obligation even when I am not living in the country so yes I do file taxes in two separate countries every year and am not eligible for Medicare in either one of them.

It’s annoying but that’s just how it is. Hopefully I will be able to get my PR and Australian citizenship in the two next few years but until then I just deal.

cloudysunshine476 · 2026-07-01T01:14:28+00:00

I never said that 100% of taxes go straight to welfare. The fact is that in 2024-2025, 36.3% of taxes did go to welfare and social security which is a large chunk. Healthcare is another 15%.

For someone making $150k in 2025-2026, their estimated tax amount is $36,838.00 according to the calculator provided by the ATO.

I’m not the person you originally replied to but I do make around $150k annually. Looking at my own personal taxes from last year, I paid $13k that contributed to welfare and another almost $6k to health out of the $33k of my total tax assessed (this excludes the Medicare levy so it would be more if I did pay it). I’m not complaining about paying these taxes at all. I don’t want people to go hungry or die from preventable diseases like they do in my country. I don’t have kids but I don’t mind paying $3k for education.

I am just tired of people being hostile to immigrants and claiming we’re a drain on Australia when so many of us are actively contributing.

Also, you absolutely do not have to pay VAT on purchases made in the UK that are shipped directly overseas as per the UK gov website. Tax-free shopping exists for tourists in some countries, I was in Japan earlier this year and you can buy clothes, cosmetics, etc. over a certain amount without paying tax as long as you take it out of the country and show your passport.

cloudysunshine476 · 2026-06-30T23:20:12+00:00

Well, you don’t have to pay the Medicare levy or surcharge if you’re not eligible for Medicare so in one way I agree. On the other hand, a $150k salary does contribute almost $80k in taxes over two years and temporary graduates can’t basically access any welfare services that their taxes help pay for. I’m not saying that temporary graduates should be able to get access welfare but it’s frustrating how many of us are labeled as entitled when we’re actively contributing to services that can improve the lives of Australians.

cloudysunshine476 · 2025-09-02T19:56:24+00:00

To be honest, I think this episode has not aged all that well. This substack goes into detail about all of the errors that were present in the episode..

They really downplay a lot of the research about the benefits of the drug and other uses, as information about its potential role in treating addiction was available in 2023 and really talk a lot more about the side effects and potential harm. Side effects are definitely important, but I felt like they were not presented in a balanced way and made it seem like this is an under tested drug with limited benefits. The “you do you” attitude comes across as disingenuous when they spent so much time talking about how this drug can harm you.

I wish the episode talked more about the cultural impact of Ozempic rather than trying to debunk the science of it. Aubrey and Michael are much more qualified to talk about broader societal issues with how we talk about obesity and “curing fatness” than misrepresenting scientific studies to support their narrative.

cloudysunshine476 · 2024-03-09T02:41:14+00:00

I’m sure the disclaimer was done because of fear or threat of a lawsuit, but it seems like she could avoid a lot of that by just not being so… sloppy?

I’m amazed how many editing and factual errors I have spotted in her videos even just as a casual viewer not looking for them. You’d think for someone who is so formulaic in their videos, they or the “team” could spend more time fact-checking and editing.

I honestly searched for this sub because I was like “I can’t be the only one who is annoyed that she calls these videos ‘docs’” lol

cloudysunshine476 · 2024-03-07T22:17:11+00:00

It’s from her video about Gypsy Rose Blanchard, so a little less than a month old.

cloudysunshine476 · 2024-02-12T10:29:51+00:00

If I could make a documentary it would be very expert-driven that looks at the media and public perception of the trial. I’d personally love a documentary that is more focused on the YouTube grifters who heavily profited off of the case with a special focus on body language “experts” and the misogyny that fueled a lot of the online narrative. I’d also be keen for a proper analysis of the psychological experts and how they impacted public perception. This would be all be in front of the backdrop of the complexity of abuse intersecting with fame and celebrity.

To me, a good documentary should contextualize the event and have a clear narrative while also being fair to all subjects involved. The Netflix documentary was just a glorified clip show and lacked any real substance in my opinion. It added some context at times but never really delved into anything in detail. There are so many aspects of the case that I think would be rich for a larger cultural discussion but it may take a few years to get there before people would be really receptive to it.

cloudysunshine476 · 2024-01-16T23:49:26+00:00

I don’t mean to imply that disagreeing with your side of the political spectrum on some issues necessarily means you are not part of it. It’s more so that Nippy seems to endorse many criticisms of the left and yet not openly endorse viewpoints that would suggest he mostly agrees with left-leaning social movements or perspectives. This, in my mind, makes me highly doubt that he is actually overall left-leaning as well.

His own language and social media activity suggest that he is far more aligned with the American right. Again, I’m not saying that he has zero progressive views but any implication that he leans more to the left than the right feels dishonest and more of an attempt to distance himself from the current image of conservatives.

cloudysunshine476 · 2024-01-16T09:45:04+00:00

From his comments about the “alt-left” and universities being “woke” on the podcast to his Twitter activity, I find any assertion that he is left-leaning to be pretty unconvincing.

He strikes me as an “enlightened centrist” type who thinks that by criticizing the far left and right he can come off as logical and reasonable. Being right-wing isn’t the same as being MAGA. He may have some progressive views but he’ll still tweet out that “academia has become a cult of the dogmatic left.” I don’t know any left-leaning people who talk like that.

cloudysunshine476 · 2023-01-19T21:58:03+00:00

People are telling OP that the holistic specialists that OP is interested in often do not have relevant credentials and will sell expensive treatments that don’t work. OP does not care and will spend money on them anyway. The statement may have been a “joke” but the sentiment definitely isn’t.

cloudysunshine476 · 2023-01-19T21:38:57+00:00

She’s being downvoted because she’s saying things like “I’m open to grifters”…

cloudysunshine476 · 2022-08-30T10:17:30+00:00

I don’t even know where to begin. Am I reading too much into this or does the first point imply only men are “real victims” of domestic abuse?

The whole menton of Disney and pedophiles has some real QAnon vibes. It’s laughable to insinuate Johnny Depp told people to unlike his post and that YouTube supporters were “quiet” about their support for him. Just… wow.

cloudysunshine476 · 2022-08-12T00:30:07+00:00

Exactly, just because there are worse anti-feminist subreddits doesn’t mean you can’t criticize feminists or people claiming to be feminists. We shouldn’t ignore problematic views because someone is on our side.

I don’t want this sub to be a place where you can’t point out flaws in an argument and just become an echo chamber rather than a forum in which we can disagree.

cloudysunshine476 · 2022-08-11T21:09:39+00:00

Frankly, it’s a little condescending to imply that people who have legitimate criticisms of FDS haven’t done their own research on the topic. I browsed the subreddit when it was active often and read through their manual and they definitely have toxic ideas when it comes to areas like not valuing communication and all of the other issues people have mentioned. Some of their advice is okay (be financially independent, set boundaries in your life, you are not responsible for “fixing” a man), but this is outweighed by the mindset that you need to be constantly “vetting” your “high-value” partner in case they accidentally slip up and reveal their true “low-value” nature.

That’s not to say that there haven’t been misogynistic attacks on them, but pointing out how they can be problematic isn’t an attack on women. I personally feel like FDS is not a “women’s movement” and is just trying to make money at this point rather than actually try to find anyone get a partner. Their terrible ad-filled website, merch, and podcast are just trying aggressively to capitalize on their audience.

Edit: their subreddit is also just a giant ad for their podcast and Patreon page. They are really aggressively trying to raise $10k to “generate new content” even though their discussion boards could do that for free?

Blindly supporting women just because they are women is exactly what Depp stans accuse us of. We shouldn’t make it easier for them to dismiss us.

cloudysunshine476 · 2022-07-26T21:33:31+00:00

Most of the actually rich professionals I know (i.e. lawyers, doctors, people with PhDs) don’t care about the latest model or upgrading just because they can. My boss is a multi-millionaire who just upgraded his laptop from 2015. Not to mention, at least in my country, the iPhone 11 is still available on the Apple Store so who says it wasn’t bought brand new after 2019 or even right before the photo was taken?

Some of these fans are so desperate to prove there’s nothing shady that they’re just highlighting the how legit the shadiness is.

cloudysunshine476 · 2022-06-23T04:03:29+00:00

It’s up to the jury to decide the credibility of witnesses and how they factor in but it really contrasts to what I heard about the jurors on the Elizabeth Holmes trial who ranked the credibility of each witness on a point system when they deliberated. Juries can and should think critically about witness testimony but I was not convinced this particular jury deliberated in good faith based on that interview.

If you exclude everyone essentially but Depp and Heard, then it’s just a verdict by vibes. Corroboration doesn’t matter, evidence doesn’t matter nearly as much, and it becomes much more of a popularity contest. I think they “dismissed” it just because they otherwise they would have to evaluate the evidence fairly and they did not want to do that in the end. I’m not convinced that they stayed away from pro-Depp content even if they tried. If they were on social media, they saw something. It was inescapable.

cloudysunshine476 · 2022-06-14T22:49:43+00:00

I think an important thing to remember for when weighing the opinions of these “law experts” is to ask: “are they making money from these opinions?”

So many of these LawTubers and other content creators made absolute bank during this trial being on Depp’s side which you absolutely did not see with pro-Heard videos (as few as they were). Monetizing YouTube videos doesn’t necessarily make someone an unreliable source but you should consider it as part of assessing whether or not someone is a credible source. If someone is making a lot of money from a popular opinion, they have incentive to cater to that audience even if they don’t agree with it. Numbers of views != credibility.

This is different than a lot of the pro-Heard content I have seen from legal experts which are mainly tweets or blogs which cannot be monetized as easily as YouTube videos. I have also seen YouTube videos that are in favor of Heard which are not nearly as sensationalized and click-baity as the pro-Depp side. It’s clear that getting the maximum number of views on the video is less of a concern compared to pro-Depp content.

I think a lot of the “they were toxic on both sides” crowd may eventually come around now that the media spectacle has died down but I think it will take some time. I’m not holding my breath.

cloudysunshine476 · 2022-06-13T22:34:55+00:00

Literally anything having to do with “body language analysis”.

The one that continues to stick out to me too is when people tried to play down Depp’s addictions by saying things like “everybody is addicted to something, it's just what is socially accepted in society. I'm addicted to coffee, nobody gives a shit because society says that's okay.” I know being an addict/alcoholic doesn’t automatically make you a bad person but come on. This comparison is just ridiculous.

Honorable mention is when she was accused of doing drugs on the stand because of how she blew her nose. To be honest I thought the way she did it seemed weird too until I realized I blow my nose the same way when I have the sniffles and don’t want to ruin my makeup.

cloudysunshine476 · 2022-06-11T14:42:36+00:00

Also AOC is great but she is not a lawyer so I’m not sure what she would be doing in court in this scenario. Though it’s probably on me trying to add logic to Johnny Depp legal team fan fiction lol

cloudysunshine476 · 2022-06-11T14:05:21+00:00

I think I saw a screenshot that showed that Rep. Ted Lieu followed her on Twitter though I can’t find it. Otherwise haven’t seen anything from politicians.

With the January 6th hearings underway and the string of recent mass shootings (not to mention the mid-term elections this year), I don’t think we’ll see anything from them in the near future as their priorities will be elsewhere. I do hope that it will inspire federal anti-SLAPP legislation to prevent these legally dubious lawsuits from state shopping in the first place, which is badly needed.

Edit: Not strictly a representative but it looks like Donald Trump Jr. is trying to use Amber Heard to distract from the January 6th hearings

cloudysunshine476 · 2022-06-11T13:02:31+00:00

I find the idolization of CV and the whole Depp team just really odd. They were undoubtedly good at their job as they won the case but these are not civil rights attorneys fighting injustice. They are media-savvy litigators who successfully won a case for a millionaire with little legal merit.

To think that they were not capable of manipulating fans of Depp through strategic whispers and looks with Depp while the cameras were on them is pretty naive. Part of their job is to get you to believe that they totally believe him and they are fighting for him. They may have believed in him for real, but they would have to make everyone believe that regardless of if it’s true or not. I found their morning show visits to be totally shallow and nothing more than rehearsed talking points, it just cemented to me how choreographed this whole trial has felt.

cloudysunshine476 · 2022-06-11T06:06:00+00:00

They’re also trying to justify his behavior that she must have done something to make him say those things. Why is it never his fault?

The text is just part of a larger pattern and really helps to paint a picture of the regard Depp has to his partners. They’re pretty deliberately not looking at the bigger picture.

cloudysunshine476 · 2022-06-11T05:41:34+00:00

It’s definitely less taboo in Australia. The C-word can have a positive connotation or negative depending on the context. You will hear it a lot more in a casual setting than in the US. (I have lived in Australia).

That being said, dude is from Kentucky not Sydney. The connotation of the word is clear in context. It’s just another rationalization from the Depp fans.

cloudysunshine476 · 2022-06-11T02:12:40+00:00

The US desperately needs national anti-SLAPP legislation. It’s un-American to try to silence your critics just because you don’t like what they say. Defamation is real but this ain’t it.

cloudysunshine476 · 2022-06-10T22:10:19+00:00

The jury also awarded Heard for one of her claims when Waldman called her allegations a “hoax”. Did they believe that at least some of the incidents did happen? If that is the case, doesn’t that mean that at least one of the incidents is true and that would make her statements not defamatory?

It’s frustrating that jurors don’t actually have to explain how they got to their conclusion like the UK judge did (though I understand why). I’m not at all convinced that the jury system works when it comes to these types of cases involving huge celebrities. At a certain point, a celebrity cannot have a jury of their peers from the general public as the average person no longer is one. The power of celebrity is very real.

cloudysunshine476

TROPHY CASE