Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Australian tax on tobacco is ridiculous

Gurkha beauty from Baranows in Hawthorn (cheapest) - $81.40 per stick

Gurkha beauty from cigar.com $19.95 per stick - with shipping and tax still won't reach $30

For a box of 25 at Baranows $1800

cigar.com 30 in a mazo - $360 and with tax and shipping tax would be about $160 say $30 shipping $500

Australian tax on tobacco is ridiculous

Gurkha beauty from Baranows in Hawthorn (cheapest) - $81.40 per stick

Gurkha beauty from cigar.com $19.95 per stick - with shipping and tax still won't reach $30

For a box of 25 at Baranows $1800

cigar.com 30 in a mazo - $360 and with tax and shipping tax would be about $160 say $30 shipping $500

sign at the airport shold read:

"Welcome to Australia... the only country to have tax on tax..."

sign at the airport shold read:

"Welcome to Australia... the only country to have tax on tax..."

Yeah I reckon, and now they cut back what you can bring back to 50g of cigars..... Works out to be 3 pretty much before they tax you at $436 iirc per kg

It's cos we all have to pay for your treatment when you get cancer

If I beleived that I would be happy to have the tax, unfortunately we all know it's 100% revenue raising

case in point...

the govt says it is increasing taxes on cigarettes to stop people smoking, as it is bad for you... however they refuse to make it illegal...

coincedentally, the tax on ciggies, keeps going up in small incriments that are just enough to raise revenue, but not enough to stop people buying ciggies.

Who wants to go out tonight for some northern suburbs trouble making? Its been years, we could go and see what the Epping boys are up to and show them that thomos boss.

Car just decided to not work enroute to vicroads.

I pushed it to a work shop, and said, fix it. I don't give a f**k, just do it.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • I'm going to slap an old nismo logo sticker on my spare one and sell it to the land of the free for a thousand bucks
    • lol, probably should have read further!
    • Well - they have arrived.  And they are easy on the eye to put it mildly... These only have three bolts - but for a start there is a key that fits with vacuum like precision..  And as you can see by my ruler, the interface is large..   I listened to a podcast on HP Academy about Dan (KiwiCNC) and I'm more than comfortable he knows what he is doing. R35 Bearing assembly should arrive later today so can mock that up for a look. Can't wait to get these on and get some brake pressure logging too. IMG_3860.MP4
    • I would be very confident that they are the same parts (the 2 different SKUs). It seems very clear that you can drop the cam in the 2-way opening, or in the other opening. If you arrange it in the other opening in the same way that you see any other 1-way diff, ie, with the flat of the cam up against the 1° side of the opening, then it would work as a 1-way. It can only spread the ramps when driving forwards - cannot spread the ramps on overrun. It would then appear obvious that if you put the cam into the opening "backwards", that you would get the angled flats of the cam working onto the "points" of the 1° side of the opening, which would give you ramp spread in both loading directions. I do wonder if the forward direction of the 1.5-way config is equivalent to the forward direction of the 2-way, seeing as the cams are flipped and the angled surfaces on those would need to be the same on each side - AND - clearly when installed in either the 2-way or 1-1ay configuration they are not intended to work exactly the same (the ramp angles on the 2-way are 10° different between forward and backward, and the ramp doesn't exist in the 1-way config). 'twere me, I think I would rather actually have a set of rings that offered the 2-way with two different sets of ramp angles, say the 55/45 of the existing design and maybe a 45/37.5 combo for a less aggressive effect), AND another set of rings with a dedicated 1.5-way opening and a dedicated 1-way opening. The 1.5-way opening would actually have the steeper angle on the overdrive side that causes it to be less pushy than the forward drive angle, like you see in many other diffs. But really - if this Nismo thing is thought out properly and all those surfaces work on each other the way that they need to, who am I to argue?
    • I would be very confident that they are the same parts (the 2 different SKUs). It seems very clear that you can drop the cam in the 2-way opening, or in the other opening. If you arrange it in the other opening in the same way that you see any other 1-way diff, ie, with the flat of the cam up against the 1° side of the opening, then it would work as a 1-way. It can only spread the ramps when driving forwards - cannot spread the ramps on overrun. It would then appear obvious that if you put the cam into the opening "backwards", that you would get the angled flats of the cam working onto the "points" of the 1° side of the opening, which would give you ramp spread in both loading directions. I do wonder if the forward direction of the 1.5-way config is equivalent to the forward direction of the 2-way, seeing as the cams are flipped and the angled surfaces on those would need to be the same on each side - AND - clearly when installed in either the 2-way or 1-1ay configuration they are not intended to work exactly the same (the ramp angles on the 2-way are 10° different between forward and backward, and the ramp doesn't exist in the 1-way config). 'twere me, I think I would rather actually have a set of rings that offered the 2-way with two different sets of ramp angles, say the 55/45 of the existing design and maybe a 45/37.5 combo for a less aggressive effect), AND another set of rings with a dedicated 1.5-way opening and a dedicated 1-way opening. The 1.5-way opening would actually have the steeper angle on the overdrive side that causes it to be less pushy than the forward drive angle, like you see in many other diffs. But really - if this Nismo thing is thought out properly and all those surfaces work on each other the way that they need to, who am I to argue?
×
×
  • Create New...