Chief Stipe

Of course it is probably funded by the export selling of 1.4 million barrels of oil per day.

I guess Norway can print money to fund these incentives: The Norwegian EV incentives: No purchase/import tax on EVs (1990-2022). From 2023 some purchase tax based on the cars’ weight on all new EVs. Exemption from 25% VAT on purchase (2001-2022). From 2023, Norway will implement a 25% VAT on the purchase price from 500 000 Norwegian Kroner and over No annual road tax (1996-2021). Reduced tax from 2021. Full tax from 2022. No charges on toll roads (1997- 2017). No charges on ferries (2009- 2017). Maximum 50% of the total amount on ferry fares for electric vehicles (2018) Maximum 50% of the total amount on toll roads (2018-2022). From 2023 70% Free municipal parking (1999- 2017) Access to bus lanes (2005-). New rules allow local authorities to limit the access to only include EVs that carry one or more passengers (2016-) 25% reduced company car tax (2000-2008). 50% reduced company car tax (2009-2017). Company car tax reduction reduced to 40% (2018-2021) and 20 percent from 2022. Exemption from 25% VAT on leasing (2015-) The Norwegian Parliament decided on a national goal that all new cars sold by 2025 should be zero-emission (electric or hydrogen) (2017). «Charging right» for people living in apartment buildings was established (2017-) Public procurement: From 2022 cars needs to be ZEV. From 2025 the same applies to city buses

No just a stupid Government with a lot of idiots willing to mortgage the country to achieve a silly goal. Sound familiar? The law of unintended consequences: a Norwegian EV bonanza that has indeed reduced emissions — but at the expense of compromising vital societal goals. Eye-popping EV subsidies have flowed largely to the affluent, contributing to the gap between rich and poor in a country proud of its egalitarian social policies. Worse, the EV boom has hobbled Norwegian cities’ efforts to untether themselves from the automobile and enable residents to instead travel by transit or bicycle, decisions that do more to reduce emissions, enhance road safety, and enliven urban life than swapping a gas-powered car for an electric one. Despite the hosannas from abroad, Norway’s government has begun to unwind some of its electrification subsidies in order to mitigate the downsides of no-holds-barred EV promotion. “Countries should introduce EV subsidies in a way that doesn’t widen inequality or stimulate car use at the expense of other transport modes,” Bjørne Grimsrud, director of the transportation research center TØI, told me over coffee in Oslo. “But that’s what ended up happening here in Norway.”

Sorry in GG's case it should be skirt lifter or bag lifter from exclusive high end stores.

Yes we'll thats another theory going round. A cashless society will close all the money laundering and tax leakage holes. No more railway sleepers for cash.

Do you have evidence on the $20 restriction? Are you sure the missus hasn't put some limits on your account?

Then you new found statistic to report is confounded and meaningless.

Pubs don't tend to carry the amount of cash you are looking for @Brodie.

I think it is a bit more complex than that as their are also DIA gambling harm minimisation regulations. There are signs up in pubs now that if you attempt to withdraw more than x or more than x times you will be refused or restricted.

Isn't the problem obvious? You could go around 10 pubs in Auckland and pump $1,000 into each machine and effectively launder $10,000 everyday. Your problem is you don't want them to know how much you collect.

Meanwhile as we go down memory lane dripping with showers of nostalgia while blaming the Mythical Waikato Mafia for the industry ills Rome shoulders. From the bottom up. What needs to be done to bolster. South Island and CD racing? To improve race status? Should @TAB For Ever and his merry band of cost accountants look to spend some of their lucre on importing horses and staff from Singapore and Macau? Probably not as they wouldn't want any decent completion for.their slow nags. Therein lies another problem where the industry has found ways to reduce the quality of fields e.g. novelty races, handicapping bias etc.

So unless this dodgy restaurant owner has a different tariff for every customer he must reduce the price of the meal another way e.g. applying a discount when the bill is paid to favour his preferred customer. Isn't this similar to rebates given to some punters? Of course at the end of the day the onwer isn't going to give a discount that is below cost or that doesnt cover his fixed costs - well not for long as he'd go broke. Yes he might do it for a shirt period but not for long eventually all the other customers find out and start wanting the same discount or go eat and drink elsewhere. The only way you could compare this restaurant owners practices to wagering is if the bookie was willing to lose heavily week in week out from a number of customers. He could do that for a while but eventually he'd start running at a loss and go broke. It's akin to the restaurant owner paying the customer to eat at his restaurant. Now yield management can be a complex mechanism to improve profits particularly in the airline and rental car industry. You don't have a perishable product but you do have a product with a single opportunity to be sold. With airline it is a seat on a flight on a plane. You can't sell that seat after the plane has taken off. With the rental car firm you rent a car per day. If the car sits in the yard not rented it costs the company. In my day it was on average $52 a day in fixed costs. It was OK on some occasions to rent a car at less than fixed costs because you got a return that covered some of those costs. What you tried to avoid though was renting the car at a cost where the additional variable costs associated with the rental e.g. cleaning the car on return were greater than than the fixed cost return. You then lost money. It was more complex than I described because there was residual value of the car to consider and a number of other variables. Of course some of the large customers got heavily discounted prices but never at a price that returned zero profit or didn't cover fixed costs at a minimum. We've discussed perishable products before with the bread baker analogy. Wagering is neither a perishable product nor exactly the same as the airline seat or the rental car day. You can't keep selling to one customer at a big loss that doesn't cover fixed costs otherwise you go broke. Unless of course you can find a zillion other mugs to subsidise the big guys @Brodie wins. In an open and competitive market even the zillions of mugs will eventually start looking for better prices somewhere else.

How does that relate to wagering?

Novel concept.

What do you mean by the $1,000 limit? Is it just for anonymous punting I.e. over the counter and through a pub machine? Aren't there no limits thorough an account other than restrictions if you are a too successful punter?

Shop or shirt lifter?

Probably.

Read and weep Pasta! 3 terms is looking good for the Nats. https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/minister-demands-action-from-kainga-ora-over-thousands-of-empty-state-homes/YWZ6RMPMGFC2TH7OQDGPYPIK3U/

Ok so no more John Key references from you?

Obviously not.

Still one turn greater than two turn. Please explain why.

I've agreed with that for a long time. Otherwise the monopoly wins and poor bookie performance prevails. I also believe the TABNZ bookies shouldn't be able to lay on the tote.

No you want other punters to turn up so you can out punt them and win more.

Apparently not. Why not hold trials there instead of Taupo? Are they sponsored by the transport companies?

Did you know I was Yield Manager for the largest rental car company in NZ at the time?