SpinningHugo wrote:Tubby Isaacs wrote:Not the poorest, no. But hardly some uber-affluent group that it's offensive to subsidize in any way at all. Especially if the investment/subsidy leads to more corporation tax and income tax being collected to be redistributed to the poor.
There's not a market for commuting to London for work. Rail is simply the only way to do it. So the price has to be regulated.
Where I think the idea of subsidy is more meaningful is at the level of the region, rather than the individual. There should be more done to raise taxes locally to the area that will benefit from the spending, though that's already what is starting to happen.
Of course there is a market for it.
Eating food is the only way of living. That doesn't mean there is no market price for food.
We should stop subsidising rich London commuters (the vast bulk of rail commuters).
If you're suggesting an alternative to a London commute say so. If required in London, few physical as well as economically
reasonable options exist for getting there if living close enough to walk or cycle is impossible. If you gotta be in London,
getting there comes in few flavours.
Different eating choices available for millions keeping body and soul together are plenty. Some buy in bulk from cooperatives,
others eat food from takeaways, shop corner market daily, do a once a month large shop and pick it up or have it delivered...not an exhaustive list.
