FlyTheNest

SpinningHugo wrote:

refitman wrote:
Oh, and people in the country who have to breathe (last I checked, all of us). Transport more people/stuff by rail and less by car - less pollution.

Giving large amounts of money to the richest will, no doubt, indirectly benefit almost everyone in some small way. That doesn't justify it.

These small indirect benefits are greatly outweighed by the large direct benefits to the immediate beneficiaries. It doesn;t come close to meeting the unfairness argument.

The last is, as I;ve explained, a bad argument.

Rail travel may pollute less than car travel, but there is nothing *inherently* good about it that means we should be encouraging it (unlike exercise, or art, or not dropping litter.) We should seek to discourage car usage by taxing it more, not by subsidising another less bad (but still bad) polluting activity as an alternative.

How the suffering fuck are people supposed to travel anywhere when you've priced them out of all travel options??!?!?!?!?!?!

But who benefits more as a proportion of their income if you lower rail fares? People on lower incomes

-Nope a small proportion of them, as most aren't commuters in the south east. Overall it is regressive, but that is only one aspect of the distributive unfairness.

And who pays more tax if you subsidise it from taxation instead of rail fares? People with greater income.

-Which assumes elasticity in the amount we tax as a proportion of GDP. History suggests there really isn't much.

You could, to take an extreme example which has never been tried before, raise the top rate of tax.[/quote]

-You could, and then you'll need to select where that amount of money is best spent. On the poor? Or on commuters in the south east. You have to take into account the opportunity cost of using that tax revenue in this way.

SH is Norman Tebbit and I claim my 5 bicycles.

refitman wrote:Why is Big Ben a thing? FFS.

Real silly season stuff.

It's almost like they're saying to themselves "Brexit? Brrr...way too hard. Let's worry about a sodding clock and bell instead!"

And who knew there was a light up there that is on when Parliament is in session?

refitman wrote:

SpinningHugo wrote:

refitman wrote:
Oh, and people in the country who have to breathe (last I checked, all of us). Transport more people/stuff by rail and less by car - less pollution.

Giving large amounts of money to the richest will, no doubt, indirectly benefit almost everyone in some small way. That doesn't justify it.

These small indirect benefits are greatly outweighed by the large direct benefits to the immediate beneficiaries. It doesn;t come close to meeting the unfairness argument.

The last is, as I;ve explained, a bad argument.

Rail travel may pollute less than car travel, but there is nothing *inherently* good about it that means we should be encouraging it (unlike exercise, or art, or not dropping litter.) We should seek to discourage car usage by taxing it more, not by subsidising another less bad (but still bad) polluting activity as an alternative.

How the suffering fuck are people supposed to travel anywhere when you've priced them out of all travel options??!?!?!?!?!?!

You won't.

If, say, poorly paid bar workers in London could no longer afford to commute in, the bar that employs them will have to raise their wages.

We shouldn't be distorting the market by subsidising businesses in London in this way.

Thanks to some for some very interesting and informed discussion on travel

One person does seem to have some odd and extreme views on how society interacts and that everything should be looked at as transactional

As more left-wing than some on here I still find it hard to get bothered by the idea of universal benefits, subsidising travel and funding HE even if some more well-off people benefit. if there is a problem with inequality of access to these type of things then we should address that rather than saying we shouldn't fund the right things - or at least aim to

The point was made about buses and they have also become more and more expensive and also less and less of a service over the years - I am happy to subsidise them as well.

The two most environmentally damaging forms of mass transport are probably the two that have become relatively cheaper over the years - quite odd really

And did I read above that someone suggested that we try and stop the mass movement of people? And that same person suggests Brexit would be the most damaging economic trigger......I suggest stopping people going to work, or pricing them out of it would be on a par at least......truly odd

Well on a 20-30 year timescale we should look at how we do transport in the future and make it sustainable as I suggested in a boring and lengthy post above but that takes vision and thought....some of which we have seen here tonight from certain posters and not at all from one other

SpinningHugo wrote:

refitman wrote:

SpinningHugo wrote:

Giving large amounts of money to the richest will, no doubt, indirectly benefit almost everyone in some small way. That doesn't justify it.

These small indirect benefits are greatly outweighed by the large direct benefits to the immediate beneficiaries. It doesn;t come close to meeting the unfairness argument.

The last is, as I;ve explained, a bad argument.

Rail travel may pollute less than car travel, but there is nothing *inherently* good about it that means we should be encouraging it (unlike exercise, or art, or not dropping litter.) We should seek to discourage car usage by taxing it more, not by subsidising another less bad (but still bad) polluting activity as an alternative.

How the suffering fuck are people supposed to travel anywhere when you've priced them out of all travel options??!?!?!?!?!?!

You won't.

If, say, poorly paid bar workers in London could no longer afford to commute in, the bar that employs them will have to raise their wages.

We shouldn't be distorting the market by subsidising businesses in London in this way.

And if people need to travel to visit relatives, go for a job interview? You are also aware that there are other places than London and costs are also going up there?

It sounds like good old Chicago school neoliberalism - the market will deliver all!

Pity it is a load of shit!

refitman wrote: And if people need to travel to visit relatives, go for a job interview? You are also aware that there are other places than London and costs are also going up there?

They, rather than other people, should pay the cost of doing so.

We should help the poorest by giving them more money, not by subsidising rich south east commuters.

Did anyone else see this about when the Confederate monuments were actually raised? V.interesting.

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Fuck it Arguing in circles.

RogerOThornhill wrote:Did anyone else see this about when the Confederate monuments were actually raised? V.interesting.

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Without clicking the link, last 20 years?

SpinningHugo wrote:
not by subsidising rich south east commuters.

So you raise rail fares even more than they are now - who feels the pain. Rich or poor?

Labour urges college principals to get students on electoral register

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2 ... l-register" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

RogerOThornhill wrote:

SpinningHugo wrote:
not by subsidising rich south east commuters.

So you raise rail fares even more than they are now - who feels the pain. Rich or poor?

The rich, because the poor can't afford it in the first place. What they didn't have, they won't miss.

refitman wrote:

RogerOThornhill wrote:Did anyone else see this about when the Confederate monuments were actually raised? V.interesting.

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Without clicking the link, last 20 years?

Nope. Much more interesting than that.

RogerOThornhill wrote:

SpinningHugo wrote:
not by subsidising rich south east commuters.

So you raise rail fares even more than they are now - who feels the pain. Rich or poor?

Depends what you then do with the money you can then spend more productively elsewhere. Give it to the poor. All of them.

Overall, there is no doubt it is regressive. That there are ^some^ poor beneficiaries doesn't suffice as a justification.

refitman wrote:

RogerOThornhill wrote:

SpinningHugo wrote:
not by subsidising rich south east commuters.

So you raise rail fares even more than they are now - who feels the pain. Rich or poor?

The rich, because the poor can't afford it in the first place. What they didn't have, they won't miss.

Well, OK, The JAMs then.

refitman wrote:Labour urges college principals to get students on electoral register

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2 ... l-register" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

they won't want students registering who might vote Labour

risk of interrupting their massive salary rises!

RogerOThornhill wrote:Well, OK, The JAMs then.

Can't see people write/say that without thinking of either The Illuminatus! Trilogy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Illuminatus!_Trilogy" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;) or the KLF.

Well, OK, The JAMs then.

I have commuted all my life.....most people I have seen on trains and buses haven't come across as being particularly rich

I think really poor people will likely use public transport a lot as well as they will not have cars - possibly buses more than trains but public transport nonetheless - and still expensive

Free bus passes for the unemployed......?

howsillyofme1 wrote:

Well, OK, The JAMs then.

I have commuted all my life.....most people I have seen on trains and buses haven't come across as being particularly rich

I think really poor people will likely use public transport a lot as well as they will not have cars - possibly buses more than trains but public transport nonetheless - and still expensive

Free bus passes for the unemployed......?

Plus coming into London by car is more expensive now because of the congestion charge. If the number of cars near my tube station is anything to go by, a fair number will come part-way by car and then switch to tube to avoid coming by rail.

RogerOThornhill wrote:

howsillyofme1 wrote:

Well, OK, The JAMs then.

I have commuted all my life.....most people I have seen on trains and buses haven't come across as being particularly rich

I think really poor people will likely use public transport a lot as well as they will not have cars - possibly buses more than trains but public transport nonetheless - and still expensive

Free bus passes for the unemployed......?

Plus coming into London by car is more expensive now because of the congestion charge. If the number of cars near my tube station is anything to go by, a fair number will come part-way by car and then switch to tube to avoid coming by rail.

Also parking.

Then again, poor people shouldn't be allowed to afford cars either, so they won't have to worry about CC or parking.

refitman wrote:Then again, poor people shouldn't be allowed to afford cars either, so they won't have to worry about CC or parking.

True......should stay home.....perhaps we should have a ghetto or something for them so we don't have to look at them

Not our problem if they cannot afford to travel - although they will not have any buses as there won't be a market for them....

NO SUBSIDIES.......FOR ANYTHING

The New New Labour slogan!

Start teaching coding when still in womb thing mentioned again.

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultat ... sion-scams" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


The government is committed to protecting people from pension scams and pursuing those who perpetuate pension scams wherever possible.


Sadly not their own.