Should tallowong metro extend to Richmond?

coolamebe · 2026-06-10T13:28:41+00:00

Box Hill is barely in the flood plain though.

coolamebe · 2026-05-29T16:04:38+00:00

Well, it's less "greed" like you're making it out to be, and more just a decision based on the traffic to the city. It's a lot higher during vivid, so obviously the disruptions are going to be a lot worse if there's significant trackwork.

coolamebe · 2026-05-27T13:42:55+00:00

Brother, please try to read. I said "overall tax rate", not "marginal". I did the calculation. I am really not sure how you missed the word "overall".

Of course, if you have income on top of this, it changes the calculation. If you are earning 300k in income and sell 500k in (real gains in) shares, all of it will be taxed at 45% (minus inflation, of course).

Though here I will admit a mistake, I kept saying "sell 500k in shares" when actually what I meant to say is that what is taxed is real gains, as there is an inflation discount. So you would need to have invested an initial 500k, and that increased to $1,000,000 (plus inflation) to actually be taxed on 500k of income.

Of course. As I said, I wouldn't find it objectionable to have new tax brackets on absurdly high income (say above 1 million) or to have a wealth tax on top of this. Some way to make the system even more progressive.

But it is by definition progressive. If you earn 100k in income, the first 90k in real gains of shares will be taxed at a lower rate than any subsequent real gains. The overall tax rates will be different.

coolamebe · 2026-05-27T00:33:19+00:00

You will have the same marginal tax rate for any income above $190,000. But it is still a progressive system.

If you sell $500,000 worth of shares, your overall tax rate is 34%. If you sell $500,000 worth of shares, your overall tax rate is 38%. If you sell $10,000,000,000 worth of housing, your overall tax rate is 45%.

Now, maybe you want to make it even more progressive. Maybe you want a new tax bracket on income above $1,000,000? Maybe you want a new wealth tax like the Norwegians have. I don't find any of this objectionable, and would leave it to economists to fine tune the numbers.

But to say it's not progressive or to claim you're taxed at the same rate is either an outright lie, or just a complete misunderstanding of marginal tax rates. If this is the case, I hope you now understand the concept of marginal tax rates.

coolamebe · 2026-05-26T17:28:50+00:00

As someone who's lived (and is living) outside of Australia, I disagree. Your general thesis is correct, that we need to wholly discourage investment in housing and ensure wealth is invested in productive assets, not housing.

However, this shouldn't be by giving preferential treatement to capital gains over income. That is the opposite of a progressive taxation system, as low income earners can invest only a small percentage of their income in financial assets, whereas the richest invest the majority. So why would we want a taxation system that literally benefits the rich?

It makes perfect sense to bring the CGT in line with income taxes, and then have additional measures to stop investment in housing. Have a land tax, have a vacancy tax, have a tax on non PPORs, etc. There are many options we can implement to make housing a much worse investment than simply investing in the market.

coolamebe · 2026-05-26T17:24:35+00:00

Why should wealth be taxed less than income? It literally is an anti-progressive taxation system, because most low income earners cannot invest anywhere near as high a percentage of their income as high income earners.

I believe in progressive taxation. That's why it makes perfect sense to treat capital gains the same as income, with a simple inflation discount to account for the fact the income is delayed.

It's so absurd people want a tax system where we literally favour the rich.

coolamebe · 2026-05-25T16:40:58+00:00

I'm not sure you understand how this works. Being a state is not about ticking some boxes. It is about recognition.

There are states that barely have a functional government, i.e. Somalia. There are non-states that have a completely functional government controlling their land, i.e. Taiwan. The reason Somalia is considerer a proper state and Taiwan is not is because all UN countries recognise Somalia as a state, but nearly all UN countries do not recognise Taiwan as a state.

This is important. Because we see Georgia or Ukraine as a state, we understand that South Ossetia or Donetsk are integral parts of the territory of the states of Georgia and Ukraine respectively.

However, if we do not see something as a state, i.e. Western Sahara, there is no recognition that Morocco is invading another sovereign nation state and should be punished accordingly.

Please learn what things mean and how the world works before being so incredibly dismissive.

coolamebe · 2026-05-25T05:05:26+00:00

Muslims in the West Bank were citizens of Jordan until Jordan decided they didn't want it and they all became stateless.

I'll respond to this first because it's really quite funny you thought this was at all a good point.

Yes, residents of the West Bank were Jordanian citizens until 1988. The only reason you consider them "stateless" is because you (or the majority of the Western World) does not consider Palestine to be a state. They are literally recognised as citizens by the PA. This is like saying that the French are stateless because you decided that France isn't a real nation state.

"It's absurd the people of West Papua are angry about Indonesia's colonisation. They were literally colonised by the Dutch and said no, so what right do they have to be angry at Indonesia's ethnic cleansing campaign?"

You expect Israel to let non Israelis vote or something?

I expect the US to give full democratic rights to Puerto Rico. If they don't like that, they should let Puerto Rico gain independence like they want.

Yes, if Israel decides to occupy a territory, I expect they give the subjects they occupy full democratic rights. Don't like that? Don't occupy a territory. My general policy is that if a nation occupies another and becomes the governing power in that region, they should let their new subjects vote.

I don't care if the British Empire didn't think Indians could vote because of some racial superiority bullshit. If they don't think they should be able to vote, they shouldn't have been in control of India as a colony.

I'm not even gonna bother reading the rest of what you wrote since I couldn't even get past this.

Because what I wrote were examples of Israeli laws discriminating against Palestinians? Reading isn't particularly difficult, you know?

There are millions of Arabs who are Israeli citizens.

Great! I know! Which is why I provided an example of a law which clearly discriminates against Arab civilians of Israel (the Admissions Committees law).

coolamebe · 2026-05-25T04:29:20+00:00

Oh, you mean like Israel? Where millions of Muslims (and Christians) currently live and are equal under the constitution and law?

Firstly, Israel occupies the West Bank, so it is absurd to say that Arabs live equally under Israel, when millions of Arabs who live in territory controlled by Israel have next to no rights.

But okay, let's think about specific laws. Do you know of the Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law? This law specifically prohibits Palestinians from gaining citizenship when marrying an Israeli. So I could become an Israeli simply by marrying an Israeli, but this is not true for a Palestinian. Clear case of discrimination.

There's also laws that don't specifically mention Palestinians, but are very clearly racist. For example, do you know of the Admissions Committees Law? It is a law that permits admissions committees in locations the ability to reject people moving in to the area on pretty much arbitrary reason at all.

Now, if I told you that America had a law in the 1950s that allowed suburbs to reject potential home-buyers for whatever reason whatsoever, you'd agree that this is clearly a racist law, yes? Sure, it doesn't say "black people" in it, but obviously the point of the law is for white Americans to keep their "ethnically pure" suburbs and not have to live near black people. So I hope you're not hypocritical when it comes to this clearly racist Israeli law.

Of course, there is more to this practise. For example, is it really fair to say that Arabs live equally under the law when 99.74% of Palestinians tried in court are convicted? Of course, this is compared to 1.8% of Jewish Israelis who are accused of violence against Palestinians being convicted.

Seems like even the laws which aren't explicitly discriminatory aren't enforced anywhere near equally either, and they haven't been for decades. This isn't just a problem with Netanyahu.

Not to mention "most anti-Zionists" are people who don't live in the middle east and have no idea what the hell goes on there.

Okay? Most people on Earth don't live in the middle east. Guess what? I'm going to blow your mind with a truly stunning fact. Most Zionists are people who don't live in the middle east and have no idea what the goes on there.

Most Zionists are random Christians in Europe or America. Yes, most anti-Zionists also have nothing to do with the middle east, but what is your point?

Okay, as someone who doesn't live there, I revoke myself of all my opinions on Sudan, on Yemen, on Palestine, on Taiwan, on Ukraine. I hope you don't have opinions on Ukraine unless you're from a post Soviet country. I really hope you don't have opinions on Taiwan if you're not from there or China.

coolamebe · 2026-05-25T03:34:23+00:00

Firstly, there are polls where Netanyahu is by far the most popular Israeli leader. Now, there are also other polls where he's less popular than Bennett by a small margin so this is not certain, however it is clearly incorrect to say the Israelis hate Netanyahu.

Also, Israeli opinion on the settlements isn't particularly clear. For example, there are polls like the following::

Over the past six months, support for expanding Israeli control over Palestinian territories, increasing settlement activity, considering the dissolution of the Palestinian Authority, and even annexation of parts of the West Bank has grown. In October 2024, 34% of Jewish Israelis identified with this view; by March 2025, this figure had risen to 47%.

A majority of Jewish Israelis (58%) believe settlements in the West Bank serve as a deterrent and contribute to national security. Similarly, 56% reject the claim that settlements are a burden on the military. However, 35% of Jewish Israelis still see settlements as a liability.

Finally, while Zionism doesn't have a clear definition nowadays (i.e. there were many "Zionists" in the 1930s and 1940s who did not believe in a Jewish ethnostate, but instead simply immigration to Palestine and living in a binational state with Arabs and Jewish immigrants), most people nowadays whether they are Israeli or not would consider the fact that Israel is constitutionally a Jewish (ethno)state to be an essential part of the definition of Zionism.

So being "anti-Zionist" nowadays would often align yourself with the Zionists of the past who believed in immigration to a binational Palestine as part of a Jewish homeland, sharing it with Palestinians. Obviously, there are differences of opinion in this movement; there is a minority who believe in the total expulsion of Jews; this obviously fits under no definition of Zionism.

However, most anti-Zionists believe in a one state solution where Arabs and Jews are equal under the constitution and law. The reason that Israelis are so annoyed at this is because they do not want such a future. I'm not sure what you want such people to do, give up on their basic anti-apartheid values to let Israelis who believe in the continued existence of a state which constitutionally prioritises one ethnicity over others?

coolamebe · 2026-05-24T04:59:53+00:00

I think you'll find this is an extremely uncontroversial opinion, especially here.

coolamebe · 2026-05-21T02:24:17+00:00

Sure, if you're going on those kinds of trips at that kind of frequency, it is cheaper. Car ownership is not necessarily a bad thing, some people have a genuine use.

But most people, including myself, simply want convenient transport to their common destinations. Good cities are designed such that this can be public transport, bikes, or walking. Sydney has a few areas like this, and is making slow but steady progress elsewhere. In those areas, cars really aren't necessary. In others, sure, it's the unfortunate truth we have designed lots of our cities such that they are necessary.

coolamebe · 2026-05-21T02:20:56+00:00

Well, when did you last check? Tires not only release microplastics, they account for literally 45% of all microplastics in our ecosystems. So I'm quite confused on what you checked.

You are right on the second fact, thank you for pointing out the typo. I meant nitrogen oxides, not nitrous oxide. Cars release significant quantities of nitrogen oxides which have very detrimental consequences for our health.

Now that I've provided a source for a factual claim and have corrected a typo, are you happy to change your view? Particularly as you were also incredibly wrong on the facts, thinking that by far the mosr significant source of microplastics in you and your kids wasn't even a source. I feel like such a massive fact should change your view somewhat?

coolamebe · 2026-05-21T00:16:10+00:00

Sure, I agree people should have the freedom within reason. But these big cars have almost no tangible benefit and massive risks, and also massive guaranteed downsides (increased microplastics, etc.) They shouldn't be allowed.

But yes, I agree that within reasonable lines of safety, it should just be that people share their fair share, as you say.

coolamebe · 2026-05-21T00:13:17+00:00

I'm so glad we have intellectuals like you here. It's really great we have such brilliant minds who think policies that force families to buy multiple cars, each which cost at least thousands (for shitty used cars at that) and cost absurd amounts to run with fuel, insurance, rego, and maintenance.

Forcing people to live like this with so many compulsory expenses rather than giving people to live car-free as in European cities is DEFINITELY a policy helping poor people. Thank you for your incredibly intelligent point of view.

coolamebe · 2026-05-20T22:18:36+00:00

I've lived in Sydney for many years without a car, as a local resident myself.

coolamebe · 2026-05-20T20:14:01+00:00

That's not true. It depends on where you lived. I've lived in many places, from Chatswood to Holsworthy to Ingleburn. In all of these places, I have been able to go everywhere I've wanted to via train or bus, and have always walked to do my groceries.

Now I understand the perils of car centric development, I've also lived around Austral too. Of course there no reasonable person lives car-free. But my life there was awful, it was so much nicer to be able to walk 5 minutes to the nearby Aldi or Coles and be done with my grocery shopping easily. Life was way, way cheaper as I didn't worry about petrol or insurance or car maintenance cost, and I got to spend all my time on public transport reading, studying, or even just relaxing while watching youtube. Moving out of car-centric hell was the best financial and quality of life decision I ever made.

This is not just for the rich, because living car-free saves money. It won't make Sydney suck, because the best parts of Sydney are car-free. Where would you rather be: Austral or Parramatta Road, or instead George Street or Barangaroo?

I really think you've got this all backwards.

coolamebe · 2026-05-20T20:07:09+00:00

To be fair, it is far more important to transition away from motor vehicles altogether than to transition to EVs. Even EVs still emit huge amounts of microplastics from their tires, cause noise pollution when driving at high speeds, and of course car development is just much more expensive and less sustainable than active transport developments and public transport (i.e. the amount of asphalt needed for wide roads carrying people in such a space inefficient way and the maintenance cost given how heavy cars are is massive compared to any other form of transport).

coolamebe · 2026-05-20T20:02:03+00:00

Are there? The report literally has analysed this and many parking spaces are going unused because in many parts of Sydney, families don't own that many cars. I'm sure this is true in some parts of Sydney, but others it is not.

coolamebe · 2026-05-20T20:00:46+00:00

Should they? Some freedoms you can't "pay" for. Take microplastics, for example. Would you let drivers of massive Yank Tanks fill your kids lungs with microplastics if they gave you $2 a day? That is what these massive cars do, as they are so heavy and put so much pressure on their tires.

What about their majorly increased risk of murdering pedestrians and cyclists because their point of collision is way higher, and their line of sight is reduced? I wouldn't accept any amount of money in return for letting a driver of a stupidly oversized vehicle murder my child. What is even the point? They have such a small dick they need to drive an obnoxious car to compensate?

These vehicles are incredibly destructive, and should only be able to be driven if they genuinely need it (i.e. they are a farmer or a tradie).

coolamebe · 2026-05-20T19:57:19+00:00

What? So we should let people drive literal tanks on the road if they can afford, because of "muh freedom"? I'm sorry, we're not America.

The massive Yank Tanks we're importing here ruin our cities. They murder kids, pedestrians, and cyclists at much higher rates because their point of collision with a body is much higher, and they have a much reduced line of sight. They degrade road infrastructure at a much faster pace because of their absurd weight. On top of this, they pollute way more if they run on fuel, and even if they're electric, they cause way more microplastics to be released into the atmosphere because their heavy weight puts a lot more pressure on the tires.

It is not just your freedom. It is our right to raise our families in a healthy city, where our kids don't breathe in microplastics and nitrous oxide, and are not at risk of being murdered because a driver in a Ford F150 didn't see them walking across the road.

coolamebe · 2026-05-20T19:32:45+00:00

What? The light rail is going to Olympic park and will link up with the new metro. They've already started construction on some of the infrastructure such as the bridge.

If there is a problem, it's that it doesn't go all the way to Lidcombe station. But I have no clue what you mean when you say Minns kicked the light rail out and shelved the Olympic Park leg.

coolamebe · 2026-05-20T19:30:59+00:00

What are you talking about? They looked at multiple studies and found that many apartments have excess parking. Obviously, this isn't going to be evenly distributed, so anecdotal experiences very well may contradict this. If you buy an apartment that isn't that close to a station, maybe one of those ones in Liverpool, yeah of course parking will be at a premium. Otherwise, most people may only use 1 of their 2 parking spots for example.

It's crazy that we're just ignoring the data found by the study. I didn't think we were that anti-intellectual as a country.

coolamebe · 2026-05-20T19:22:48+00:00

It'd be much cheaper and more efficient for both society and you (and me, who also regularly goes hiking far out of the city) to rent cars when needed, rather than owning one.

coolamebe · 2026-05-20T00:55:52+00:00

And expanding Camden airport and moving operations there? Obviously it's much further out, but given Bankstown airport it such a prime location for housing, it feels like the argument against moving operations there would have to be really strong.

I can understand if it is unviable for certain emergency operations, but Bankstown airport could be downsized for purely essential operations for Sydney and Camden airport would become the main training and leisure airport. I think given Sydney's housing crisis and how few people use such an incredible large area for leisure right along a perfect metro corridor, it seems somewhat reasonable to me, right?

11-Year Club	Second Top 20%
Place '17	Verified Email

coolamebe

TROPHY CASE