This was posted 2 years 2 months 23 days ago, and might be an out-dated deal.

Related
  • expired

[NSW] 5x $50 ($250 Total) Parents NSW Vouchers (Use at Discover NSW & Stay NSW Businesses) @ Service NSW

1703
[NSW] 5x $50 ($250 Total) Parents NSW Vouchers (Use at Discover NSW & Stay NSW Businesses) @ Service NSW
Go to Deal
impactportraits on 06/02/2022 - 15:54 service.nsw.gov.au (5421 clicks)
Last edited 07/02/2022 - 15:16 by 2 other users

$250 In Total - 5 x $50 Parents NSW Vouchers

Description as per service NSW website…

$250 in vouchers
The NSW Government has launched Parents NSW Vouchers to thank parents, guardians and carers who provided home learning to their school-enrolled children during 2021.

From February, one person from each eligible household can apply for 5 x $50 vouchers, worth $250 in total.

To apply, you must have provided learning from home during 2021 for a school-aged child aged 4.5 to 18 years in 2021.

The 5 x $50 Parents NSW Vouchers can be used:

Should be able to apply via the Service NSW app as of Monday 7th of Feb

Thanks @NGpriest for website to assist in searching businesses that accept the vouchers
https://nswdnd.ngpriest.com/

Entertainment Accommodation Activity Parents NSW Voucher Recreation

Related Stores

NSW Government
NSW Government

closed Comments

    • Yabadabadoo on 06/02/2022 - 16:09
      +28

      Less you will have to pay back in taxes then 😁

        • SBOB on 06/02/2022 - 17:42
          +17

          You don't pay state taxes unless you're a business.

          Registration/motor vehicle tax, property/stamp duty, Land tax, GST (technically federal but distributed directly to states/territories)

          Plenty of tax revenue from non business sources for states/territories

        • jebdra on 06/02/2022 - 18:09
          +2

          "You don't pay state taxes unless you're a business." Cyphar

          Where do you think the state government gets its money from. Everyone who pays GST contributes to state government revenue. Plus, as SBOB says, lots of other state taxes.

        • CandyMan on 06/02/2022 - 18:23
          -1

          Stamp duty!

      • 1st-Amendment on 07/02/2022 - 07:42
        -2

        Less you will have to pay back in taxes then 😁

        I'm surprised you got so many up votes. Every time I mention that freebies from the government are not free I get down voted into oblivion.

    • Diji1 on 06/02/2022 - 16:13
      +10

      Did you vote to lose hundred of thousands of dollars by privatising utilities via Labor or Liberal?

      • Techie4066 on 06/02/2022 - 16:35
        +7

        …and destroying the public sector?

      • 1st-Amendment on 07/02/2022 - 07:45
        -1

        How do you think privatising anything loses you money? Just curious…

        • syousef on 07/02/2022 - 15:31
          +1

          It loses money because instead of getting rid of the government waste it kicks it down the road and adds to it.

          Instead of having inefficient and sometimes incompetent government departments running things, you have them negotiating deals. Often those deals can be corrupted but even if there's no corruption the same government incompetence can lead to huge losses when making the deal. Only while incompetence can be remedied if it is found during operations, a poorly negotiated contract will have consequences that can't be fixed and that can last years or decades.

          But let's say it works as advertised and there is no incompetence or corruption involved, and it's the ideal case where competition in the market drives down price of the services provided to government and citizens. There is STILL an extra layer of profit-taking involved because the private company is doing this for profit. So you won't even break even on cost or efficiency until you pay those profits.

          Privitization works best when you have very competent government, and you privitize non-essential services. You only have to look at the prices and service for utilities and transport in Australia (I'm most familiar with my own state of NSW) to see what it does to price and quality. Or the NDIS.

          • 1st-Amendment on 08/02/2022 - 07:34
            -2

            @syousef:

            and sometimes incompetent government departments…

            Not sometimes, all the time. And the reason it is all the time is because the public service is full of dead wood that you can't remove. It is full of people who only turn up to work to wait out their retirement becasue the Defined Benefits scheme they are on is so valuable.
            If you've ever worked in any high performance team you'll know the key part to high performance is rewarding success and punishing failure. The public service is legally prevented from doing either of those two things so will always be a low performing organisation.

            and it's the ideal case where competition in the market drives down price of the services provided to government and citizens. There is STILL an extra layer of profit-taking involved because the private company is doing this for profit. So you won't even break even on cost or efficiency until you pay those profits.

            There's some crazy mental gymnastics going on there. Let's quantify your argument to see how ridiculous it is. Public Service A cost the taxpayer $1000/year to use. The government then decides to sell off Public Service A for $1B to become Private Service B. Private Service B manages to drive down costs due to greater efficiencies and is able to offer the service for $900/year at the same time as being a profitable entity. It also improves the service and adds more products and features.

            So as a taxpayer you are $1B + $100/year better off AND getting a better service, but you think this somehow costs you more because the private business is making a profit?

            You only have to look at the prices and service for utilities and transport in Australia (I'm most familiar with my own state of NSW) to see what it does to price and quality.

            Perfect example.
            When STA ran the buses they were a shitty service that everyone hated. Timetables were decided union penalty rates rather than user demand. The fleet were the cheapest noisy, rattly old vehicles with leaky windows and no aircon. It was the perfect example of a service run by low performance public servants. Now they outsource to private operators and the fleets and services have improved dramatically.

            • syousef on 08/02/2022 - 12:47
              +3

              @1st-Amendment: It's been a long time since new starters could get defined benefits. Of course you can be punished in the public service. These stereotypical ideas of the public service as a gravy train are at best years out of date, and at worst fiction spun by those with an agenda and swallowed by the masses.

              …and yet you think it's me donig "crazy mental gymnastics".

              I've lived in Sydney all my life and no public transport service in this city has improved. From light rail with cracks, to 5 hours to cross the city by public transport on a Sunday and constant trackwork, to buses that are performing worse. If you honestly think anything has improved you're young and indoctrinated. Things were WAY better in the 1980s when I was a kid. Trackwork interuptions happened once or twice a year and the services were more direct and more frequent on the weekend.

              • 1st-Amendment on 08/02/2022 - 13:45
                -1

                @syousef:

                are at best years out of date, and at worst fiction spun by those with an agenda…

                Because you said so? Name me the highest performing public sector you know of and let's test your hypothesis.

                Things were WAY better in the 1980s when I was a kid

                Nostalgia goggles. Good thing for you we still have some old buses and trains from the 80's still being used. You are welcome to only use those if you prefer them 🤣

                • syousef on 08/02/2022 - 17:08
                  +1

                  @1st-Amendment: Because I said so huh? I see you provided plenty of links and evidence to back what you said. #hypocrisy

                  No nostalgia goggles. You use to be able to cross the city in half the time on a Sunday. It was still terrible but no where near as bad as now. Those buses and trains from the 80s don't run to the same routes or timetables but hey why bother with making an argument when you can just throw sarcasm instead yeah?

                  • 1st-Amendment on 09/02/2022 - 10:04
                    -1

                    @syousef:

                    I see you provided plenty of links and evidence to back what you said.

                    Well yeah I did give examples. All the new rolling stock and vehicles of today are vastly superior than the 1980's I can't help it if you can't read

                    You use to be able to cross the city in half the time on a Sunday.

                    That is not an example. From where to where specifically? Is "5 hours to cross the city by public transport on a Sunday" the best you have?

                    Those buses and trains from the 80s don't run to the same routes or timetables

                    That's right we now have 24 hour and on-demand services, and aircon and USB charging etc which were extremely rare or non-existent in the 80's. The population of Sydney has almost doubled in that time too.

                    but hey why bother with making an argument

                    I gave you actual examples you give fluff in return.

                    • syousef on 09/02/2022 - 11:30
                      +1

                      @1st-Amendment: If there aren't improvements over vehicles from the 1980s, there's something very wrong. You might as well say water is wet. But vastly superior? Well let's see light rail that has to be taken out of service for months due to structural cracks isn't superior. What does my inability to read have to do with your inability to state and support your case?

                      I love that you're asking for specifics but haven't given any. Try this 4h 17min to get from Avalon Beach to Camden on a Sunday if you want to arrive at 8:30am according to transportnsw.info trip planner. That is if there is no trackwork or other interruption. A trip that whereis.com states should take 1 hr 46 mins by car.

                      USB charging and aircon? Wait a second, you think having charging for a techology that didn't exist in the 1980s means it's much better now? Don't you think just maybe that is something to do with the technology and the expectations that come with progress rather than something that speaks about the quality of the service?

                      You're literally taking the micky and wasting my time. Yet you accuse me of "fluff in return"? Thanks for the laugh. I needed one today! Who even talks like that?

                      • 1st-Amendment on 09/02/2022 - 11:42
                        -2

                        @syousef:

                        Try this 4h 17min to get from Avalon Beach to Camden on a Sunday if you want to arrive at 8:30am

                        Cool, so how does this compare to 1980? You're still struggling with how comparisons work aren't you?

                        Don't you think just maybe that is something to do with the technology and the expectations that come with progress

                        Bingo! So who do you think invents all these things? Governments or private sector? Do you see it now?
                        You accept that innovative technology and progress have happened, but you don't seem to be able to figure out who is responsible for it.

                        • syousef on 09/02/2022 - 11:51

                          @1st-Amendment: You're hilarious. A comic genius in fact.

                          How does it compare to 1980? You want me to go dig up 1980s timetables to win an argument with someone who is being abusive, won't lift a finger to prove their own point, who I am certain will only turn around and deny what I do prove yeah? Sounds very reasonable. So is defending 4 hrs 17 minutes to get across town (less than 100km!) as wonderful and improved public transport system because hey we got airconditioning and the occasional USB charge port.

                          Yes technology has progressed. That's your point?! Wow. Genius. You defeated me. Never mind that it has very little to do with the quality of the service or how long it takes to get across town. That technology has literally progressed in every part of the world where you don't have to change services 5 times and spend half your day travelling just to get across a city.

                          And of that technological process what part of that can you show is due to privitization? And what would have been so much worse under government run transport? Where's your proof exactly? #hypocrisy

                          You think you've proved your point huh? As I said, comedy gold mate.

                          • 1st-Amendment on 09/02/2022 - 18:09
                            -1

                            @syousef:

                            You want me to go dig up 1980s timetables

                            Well you made a comparison without providing anything to compare against so it's your call…

                            Sorry if you can't work out how comparisons work, but in order to compare you need at least two examples not just one.

                            So is defending 4 hrs 17 minutes to get across town…

                            I didn't do that at all. YOU said it was better in the 1980's, yet you can't give a single example to compare. Is 4:17 better or worse? Maybe it was 6 hours in the 1980's, maybe it was 3 hours? We have no way of knowing because you can't figure that simple bit of logic out…

                            • syousef on 09/02/2022 - 18:19

                              @1st-Amendment: So you have no burden of proof claiming privitization has improved things and made them cheaper today (leaving aside general improvements in technology that private or public services would have shared equally but that you claim are proof). Whereas you seriously expect me to go to heroic effort to dig up pre-Internet-age time tables for you to prove you wrong while knowing you're just going to dismiss whatever I find. Yeah like I said very reasonable. Would you also like me to provide you with a million dollars, and a lavish feast for free?

                              The reality: 4 hrs 17 minutes to cross the city makes us a LAUGHING STOCK on the world stage TODAY. It's nothing to boast about, and certainly nothing that tells us that privitization has wonderful advantages. And no, I'm not going to spend time digging up well documented public transport that runs more frequently and efficiently in other cities around the world. Google it, or look up a travel guide. If you don't want to that's your issue.

                              Would you also like me to dig up the cost of a ticket to cross the city for comparison? Because that would not be favourable either, even factoring inflation.

                              Like I said, it's comedy gold. But instead of removing your foot from your mouth you keep shoving it further down your throat. Kudos on the level of absurdity.

            • darkmattersunB6c0MV on 08/02/2022 - 13:30
              +3

              @1st-Amendment: Why do you say privatisation improves things and reduce costs?
              Usually, the costs go up, and after the initial improvement, they squeeze more money from the consumers.
              A case in example? The Airport Line in Sydney.

              When you enter or exit the train station at Sydney Domestic Airport or Sydney International Airport, a station access fee is charged, on top of your train fare. The fee is automatically deducted from your Opal card or contactless payment, and is included in the cost of an Opal Single trip ticket. It is charged by the Airport Link Company who privately-owns the airport stations.

              I fail to understand how the charge is an extra $15 for accessing the Airport. For a family of 4, it is cheaper to catch a cab or Uber.
              The station is not extraordinary to have the extra charge, and Airport Link Company ( was, before the pandemic) is laughing all the way to the bank.

              • 1st-Amendment on 08/02/2022 - 14:31
                -3

                @darkmattersunB6c0MV:

                Why do you say privatisation improves things and reduce costs?

                Can you name an example where it hasn't?

                Usually, the costs go up, and after the initial improvement, they squeeze more money from the consumers.
                A case in example? The Airport Line in Sydney.

                Not a great example since Airport Link built the line. ie it wasn't a privatisation of an existing service, however let's use it anyway as it still demonstrates the point.

                It is charged by the Airport Link Company who privately-owns the airport stations.

                They don't own anything. Airport Link OPERATES the line in return for building it. So the taxpayer got extra lines and new stations built in exchange for a user pays funding model. Train stations cost money, who do you think should pay for that? The people who use it, or everyone including the people who don't use it?

                I fail to understand how the charge is an extra $15 for accessing the Airport.

                How much would rail lines, tunnels and stations cost you to build and operate?

                For a family of 4, it is cheaper to catch a cab or Uber.

                So do that then. The beauty of the free market you now have more choice. You've effectively answered you own question because you prefer the privately run Taxi or Uber to any government run service. Personally I choose the train becasue $15 for traffic-free direct ride to the terminal is worth it to me.

                The station is not extraordinary to have the extra charge, and Airport Link Company ( was, before the pandemic) is laughing all the way to the bank.

                Airport Link is 1/2 owned by a super fund, so those profits go to regular people like you and me. Also 85% of the revenue goes back to the taxpayer so another win for us.
                So as a taxpayer, Airport Link built us a train line and station which cost nothing to you unless you use it, then if you prefer you can choose to pay the $15 or do something else like Uber. How is that anything other than a good result?

                Compare that to what we had before Airport Link, it is a massive improvement.

                • syousef on 08/02/2022 - 17:11

                  @1st-Amendment: People have named plenty of examples where it hasn't. You just spent the rest of that comment trashing one of those examples. Can you name an example where privitization has reduced cost to the consumer?

                  Privitization doesn't improve choice because most of the contracts governments sign tend to be exclusive or very limited to a small number of operators. Sometimes that's the nature of the contract but often it's artificial.

                  There was no airport link before so technically a link is better than none, but the hilarious thing is if there are several people traveling it's cheaper to hire someone to drive you. So it's a massive and wasteful fail.

                  • 1st-Amendment on 10/02/2022 - 08:35
                    -1

                    @syousef:

                    People have named plenty of examples where it hasn't.

                    Which people? What examples? Feel free to post them here.
                    The fact that you are repeatedly unable to provide a single one says all we need to know….

                    Can you name an example where privitization has reduced cost to the consumer?

                    Airport Link, B1, Forest Lines, Sydney Metro, Fast Ferries, Westconnex, Northconnex, pretty much every major infrastructure project from the last 20 years…

                    Privitization doesn't improve choice

                    Once again you simply say stuff with zero evidence to support it.
                    We already demonstrated how Airport Link gives you more choice for modes of transport to and from the airport.

                    There was no airport link before so technically a link is better than none

                    Lol, so you agree that there is more choice while at the same time saying there is not more choice. You might want to think a little harder before replying next time.

                    if there are several people traveling it's cheaper to hire someone to drive you

                    And what if there is not several people traveling with you? Now you have more choice. You can choose a hire car, a taxi or bus, and now you can also choose a train or Uber and even walk now that the pedestrian access has also been upgraded. Do you understand what the word 'more' means?

                    So it's a massive and wasteful fail.

                    The taxpayer got a train line and station effectively built for free which 10 million people choose to use each year, and will now generate revenue back to the taxpayer. Your definition of 'wasteful' and 'fail' is absurd.

                    • syousef on 10/02/2022 - 12:13

                      @1st-Amendment:

                      Which people? What examples? Feel free to post them here.

                      You're literally wasting my time by going around in circles. If you can't read what is written, my repeating it won't help.

                      Airport Link, B1, Forest Lines, Sydney Metro, Fast Ferries, Westconnex, Northconnex, pretty much every major infrastructure project from the last 20 years…

                      All are overpriced and don't perform well against overseas competition.

                      Once again you simply say stuff with zero evidence to support it.

                      And once again, where is your supporting evidence. The hypocrisy is mind-blowing.

                      Once again you simply say stuff with zero evidence to support it.
                      We already demonstrated how Airport Link gives you more choice for modes of transport to and from the airport.

                      A publicly provided Airport Link would have given the same choice. How on earth do you think that you've demonstrated anything?

                      Lol, so you agree that there is more choice while at the same time saying there is not more choice. You might want to think a little harder before replying next time

                      Are you intentionally pretending to fail to understand what I have said? That choice would be there whether it was publicly funded or privately built.

                      And on and on and on you go about choice that is not generated by privitization but by the existence of a new service no matter how it is funded.

                      The taxpayer got a train line and station effectively built for free

                      $15 fees for using a station is "free". Are you kidding me? No really, are you expecting to be taken seriously at this point?

                      If you can't argue with any modicum of honesty, don't waste my time replying.

                      • 1st-Amendment on 10/02/2022 - 14:34

                        @syousef:

                        my repeating it won't help.

                        So you can't name a single example. I think we're done here…

                        • syousef on 10/02/2022 - 14:45

                          @1st-Amendment: You have ignored every single point I made and denied any evidence I presented while presenting literally nothing but hyperbole and a list of projects that could have been funded either publicly or privately with no point of comparison to differentiate between the two or indicate that private is in fact superior in any way. If a private project were to produce a turnip as output you'd argue that the turnip couldn't have existed if it were publicly funded. This is beyond Dunning-Kruger. Well done. We are indeed done.

                          • 1st-Amendment on 11/02/2022 - 08:28
                            -1

                            @syousef:

                            denied any evidence I presented

                            You presented no evidence, only your nostalgic version of your rose-tinted childhood memories lol…

                            Dunning-Kruger

                            Indeed. When you have some actual evidence to support your argument, let me know.

                            We are indeed done.

                            And then after saying this you went and posted some more. You are hilarious.
                            No wonder you are struggling with this, you contradict yourself every second post lol…

                            Aussie commuters pay the second-most in the world for public transport,

                            Oh man, do you even know what the topic is?

                            • syousef on 11/02/2022 - 10:16

                              @1st-Amendment: Literally nothing new to add other than to demonstrate you don't understand how public transport pricing factors into why the privitization of transport in Australia has been awful. You're just repeating yourself when I've already answered why your criticisms are nonsensical and hypocritical. Clearly you need the last word. Have at it.

                              • 1st-Amendment on 11/02/2022 - 12:57
                                -1

                                @syousef:

                                you don't understand how public transport pricing factors into why the privitization of transport in Australia has been awful.

                                Well enlighten us, with evidence rather than just your childhood memories…

                                Standby for more excuses in 3, 2, 1….

                                • syousef on 11/02/2022 - 13:42

                                  @1st-Amendment: Yeah you first buddy. Again, a list of projects that could have been done privately or publicly with similar or same outcome doesn't constitute proof.

                                  • 1st-Amendment on 12/02/2022 - 10:25
                                    -1

                                    @syousef:

                                    Yeah you first buddy.

                                    Lol, you are the one making the claim. Do you know how that works? Burden of proof etc?

                                    Look back at your very first comment "It loses money because…"

                                    This is the claim you are making. Now you've spent numerous post avoiding that and somehow making it my fault that you can't provide a single example to support your claim.

                                    a list of projects that could have been done…

                                    Oh dear… 'Could have' is all you could come up with?

                                    We get the picture now. Thanks for the laughs…

                                    • syousef on 12/02/2022 - 12:14

                                      @1st-Amendment: YOU are the one claiming that privitization has improved things. The burden of proof is most certainly on you.

                                      Your mental gymnastics are amazing.

                                      • 1st-Amendment on 14/02/2022 - 09:01
                                        -1

                                        @syousef:

                                        YOU are the one claiming that…

                                        Lol. Well let's test your hypothesis.
                                        From the top:

                                        Me: "How do you think privatising anything loses you money? Just curious…"
                                        You: 'It loses money because…" then proceeded for an entire week to avoid giving any actual example.

                                        You are the gift that keeps on giving…

                                        • syousef on 14/02/2022 - 09:45

                                          @1st-Amendment: At this point I'm absolutely sure you're trolling.

                                          It isn't my hypothesis. YOU are the one claiming privitization has reduced cost.

                                          The change is privitization. Not the lack of privitization.

                                          I pointed out that there is a 3rd party involved that seeks to profit. YOU need to prove that any efficiencies gained cover that profit and provide surplus profit.

                                          You claimed you proved privatization saved money just by listing projects that were privitized and claimed victory because technology has improved in the last few decades, as if publicly funded projects were going to use 50 year old technology.

                                          And when I did show you proof you ignored it, because apparently in your mind having one of the most expensive public transport systems doesn't factor into it.

                                          You only want me to prove stuff so you waste my time and then deny it even matters.

                                          Go away, troll.

                                          • 1st-Amendment on 14/02/2022 - 12:44
                                            -1

                                            @syousef:

                                            It isn't my hypothesis

                                            Lol. It actually is. I even quoted you here:

                                            You: 'It loses money because…"

                                            I pointed out that there is a 3rd party involved that seeks to profit

                                            So a hypothesis then lol…
                                            You really need to think harder before typing…

                                            Go away

                                            You are free to leave at anytime. Funny how you keep saying you are done, yet keep coming back.. 🤣

                    • syousef on 10/02/2022 - 12:16

                      @1st-Amendment: https://travel.nine.com.au/latest/australia-expensive-public…

                      "Aussie commuters pay the second-most in the world for public transport, according to new data by flight deals website Globehunters."

  • Bettyboo on 06/02/2022 - 16:00
    -6

    How do we apply? How do we use it. Can we use it by booking via booking.com or has to be directly accommodation.

    • impactportraits on 06/02/2022 - 16:03
      +4

      should go live in the NSW service app as of Monday the 7th

      • hallo123 on 06/02/2022 - 17:53
        +10

        But I prefer to live at home.

    • AndyC1 on 06/02/2022 - 16:54
      +7

      Follow the deal link and read.

      • Archi on 06/02/2022 - 17:10
        +4

        that's too hard…

        someone needs to summarise and put in simple point form format..

        • CandyMan on 06/02/2022 - 18:23

          And preferably bold the key words

  • wetwork on 06/02/2022 - 16:06

    Use at "participating" places.
    My local cinemas take the last lot of vouchers.
    Oh and a donut place at the local mall.

    • Chicken Kyiv on 06/02/2022 - 16:38
      +1

      Donuts and a movie sounds alright

      • NobalaKoba on 06/02/2022 - 17:51

        When will you leave Canberra?

      • SBOB on 06/02/2022 - 17:58
        +7

        there's no way I'm risking my health

        Yet hungry jacks, McDonald's and dominos are all ok based on your past comments.

  • Drakesy on 06/02/2022 - 16:23
    +39

    Perrottet: "How do we hide our deficit and get votes while telling people we're doing them a favour for our train wreck of an approach?"
    Gladys: "Throw money at Wagga, i mean NSW"
    Australia: Here we go again.

    Yes it's a good way to restart the economy, but totally avoidable.

    • mountaineer on 06/02/2022 - 17:19

      I don't disagree but it is better than leaving the money with the politicians to decide where the money to be spent or with whom….

    • neonlight on 06/02/2022 - 17:31
      +16

      No way Perrottet can buy me back to vote for Liberal and their clowns.

  • ITveteran on 06/02/2022 - 16:39
    +12

    Well, use you tax payer's money to bribe yourselves. Hopefully you guys will thank me. - D.M.

  • Sheng on 06/02/2022 - 16:40
    +5

    Timezone it is.

  • mintygirl on 06/02/2022 - 16:46
    +14

    can they just friken use that money to give the poor hcw pay rises?

    • jebdra on 06/02/2022 - 18:13
      +9

      I don't know why you've been downvoted.

      Unless people don't understand hcw = health care workers

      • Techie4066 on 06/02/2022 - 21:06
        +2

        Not a terrible idea to give the poor payrises/boosted social security either?

        They have the highest marginal propensity to consume after all. Taking it from the neoliberal perspective since they hate human needs.

    • Averell on 07/02/2022 - 13:14
      +1

      Agree.
      I have 3 kids, but I don't like their idea of having active/creative kids vouchers.

  • first in line on 06/02/2022 - 16:46
    +41

    Once again the single/no kids gets ignored

    • Drewbo on 06/02/2022 - 16:52
      +10

      May as well have "ATM" tattooed on our foreheads.

      • Drakesy on 06/02/2022 - 17:07
        +19

        What makes a single who chose not to have a kid different?
        They dont require childcare subsidies
        Generally less of a burden on the health system
        Pay more tax per person than couples

          • Eeples on 07/02/2022 - 00:16
            +1

            @Hugh G Rection: If you see ‘other people get something and want it too” doesn’t make you selfish; it makes it fair.

        • SBOB on 06/02/2022 - 17:17
          +4

          Pay more tax per person than couples

          Though your tax generation ends when you stop working
          Kids, means future tax generation

          While governments barely ever think past the next election in terms of planning, population growth is something that is required to maintain future tax revenue

          • jebdra on 06/02/2022 - 18:15
            +6

            @SBOB: You've just described a ponzi scheme.

            You describe it, you see it, but you don't understand it. Do you really think the human race can keep growing in numbers for ever.

            • SBOB on 06/02/2022 - 18:42
              +1

              @jebdra:

              Do you really think the human race can keep growing in numbers for ever

              Who said anything about growth..
              2 people having 2 kids, is flat population size over the long term.

              Or is that maths too complex?

              • sydney_kings on 06/02/2022 - 19:52
                +4

                @SBOB: It actually is slightly more complex.

                Life expectancy also plays a part, so the longer the kids live beyond their parents also equals population growth.

                ;)

              • afoveht on 06/02/2022 - 19:57
                +2

                @SBOB:

                Who said anything about growth..

                and

                population growth is something that is required

                • SBOB on 06/02/2022 - 19:59

                  @afoveht: touche :)

                  but whatever, taxation is a ponzi scheme then.

                  • afoveht on 06/02/2022 - 20:02
                    +2

                    @SBOB: Tax is not a ponzi scheme, economic theories depending on infinite growth are. We are currently operating under such a scheme.

              • jebdra on 13/03/2022 - 19:16

                @SBOB: Actually - you did!

                You said "population growth is something that is required to maintain future tax revenue"

          • Drakesy on 06/02/2022 - 18:16
            +3

            @SBOB: The government though will realise that people can only have kids so far as they can afford them.

            With housing costs the way they are our fertility rate will continue to decline (as it has since 2010), with immigration propping up our growth.

            • SBOB on 06/02/2022 - 18:44

              @Drakesy:

              The government though will realise that people can only have kids so far as they can afford them

              Zero arguments there.

              I was just commenting on why spending on 'families' isnt always just as simple as assuming it's a 'now' insentive

            • Hugh G Rection on 06/02/2022 - 20:52
              +2

              @Drakesy: whats messing up our housing situation is that foreigners are overpaying for houses and locals can no longer afford it. at this rate Australia won't even be owned by Australia.

              • Techie4066 on 06/02/2022 - 21:12

                @Hugh G Rection: That is highly contestable given just how high prices were - still - when borders were closed for 2 years, to foreigners and citizens. No external population growth factored in to the housing market and the inflated bubble was still clear for all to see. As of late, demand has naturally skyrocketed fuelled by post-lockdown demand, while we don't have many foreigners arriving.

                We have limited land in cities. High demand. High rise is opposed. And oldies who don't downsize. Everyone wants ridiculous prices at the end of the day.

              • Eeples on 07/02/2022 - 00:20
                +2

                @Hugh G Rection: Either that or politicians (most of whom own multiple investment properties) have no incentive to stop investors buying more and more properties and enjoying tax breaks.

        • neonlight on 06/02/2022 - 17:32
          -5

          You don't need a voucher since you are already better off I guess!?

    • Crusader on 06/02/2022 - 17:03
      +5

      Yep, shafted again

    • heal on 06/02/2022 - 17:22
      +6

      If you are in Sydney you can get $100 to use in CBD restaraunts.

      I live in the bush. My wife and I haven't used our 6x $25 discover vouchers because there's nowhere to use them. I don't complain about what I don't get living where I do.

      Pretty much all states have had incentives or vouchers to go and stay at certain regions, eat out, things for families, etc. You won't qualify or be able to take advantage of everything. I certainly don't for most. I challange anyone who has a problem with government spending to just decline to use it.

    • [Deactivated] on 06/02/2022 - 17:30
      -3

      They need to condition people to accept the government as their parent, doling out a dribble of "free" stuff, after stealing it from them in the first place via their high taxes.

      • Techie4066 on 06/02/2022 - 21:15
        +4

        No no no, got it all wrong.

        It's to cover for the LNP's shambolic mess of the books they've made while cooking them and selling off all our public utilities. See: TAHE, privatising bus routes, scrapping Gentrader and selling Vales Point for $1m….
        All the while cost of living gets out of control and real wages erode.

        • WT on 07/02/2022 - 07:29

          wow I had to look it up, vales point is a bloody power plant, sold for only 1m!?!?! wtf I would have bought that

          • Techie4066 on 07/02/2022 - 08:46
            +1

            @WT: Yeah I know, unbelievable isn't it. Although they only provide for their mates. Worth $370m at the time, then became worth $750m or something of that order.

            I didn't even mention Dom's iCare mess.

    • Trekky on 06/02/2022 - 18:26
      +1

      Once again the single/no kids gets ignored

      I was just going to say this…….

    • Vieira4 on 06/02/2022 - 18:27
      +1

      You need to raise some future taxpayers for the matrix.

    • JoeTripodi on 06/02/2022 - 23:02
      -1

      Happy to be ignored but hate seeing these waste of money schemes

    • sp0rk on 07/02/2022 - 14:38
      -1

      The teachers are getting ignored too
      My wife was working her arse off at home preparing and marking work, a lot of the time with our toddler at home
      They've gotten no recognition

  • mrklaus on 06/02/2022 - 16:49
    +12

    So all parents who struggled during the same period with children 0 to 4.5 get absolutely nothing.
    Nice one, Mr. "Let it rip"

    • AndyC1 on 06/02/2022 - 16:56
      +5

      Should have some how included kids who went to child care, but could not due to Covid last year.

      • mrklaus on 06/02/2022 - 16:57
        +2

        Exactly

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join