East Coast train line under public control

[McAz]

Does privatisation result in less tax-payers' money?



Government support to the rail industry is roughly three times what it was at the end of the 1980s, varying year to year.

[Fletch]

Are there passenger rail lines in the UK that actually cover operating costs with revenues?

Don't think there are any here.

Thats Jack's socialist 'solution'..taxpayer money--a never ending flow of it to pay for govt inefficiency.-Yes the rail lines in the UK,according to Jack, cover operating costs.With UK taxpayer money..
And Jack is fine with that as long as he's not bearing the brunt of it.

How sad that there are still those whose right wing dogma means they know the cost of everything, and the value of nothing.

A well run, efficient railway represents huge value to the GDP of any country - far more than the costs of subsidy.

And if you want examples, try Germany, Japan, in fact most of Europe.

Getting your workers to work on time and freight to where it needs to be (and keeping it off crowded roads) counts for a lot. And keeping prices affordable counts for a lot more. Those advantages certainly outweigh subsidies.

^^^^ This.

Have we lost all knowledge of what public services actually are? Has the right wing media and pro US narratives reprogrammed the masses to thinking everything must make a profit and someone must get rich from it?

Public services are services for the public paid out of their taxes. They are things that make life better, or are required in a civilised country. It is the shared cost of providing the infrastructure a country needs to allow capitalism to operate. It is not free shit or socialism, it is normal, or was until 1979.

Now, your taxes simply go to enriching private operators. Private operators that charge high for poor service and often go missing once they've loaded the company with debt leaving people, sometimes vulnerable people, without. The state then has to pick up the pieces but have no fear, under the modern dogma, another outfit will be along to pick over the carcase and extract some more public money.

This fiasco is another example of what has been seen before. Many times. It's theft, not efficiency.

[Punk]

Are there passenger rail lines in the UK that actually cover operating costs with revenues?

Don't think there are any here.

Thats Jack's socialist 'solution'..taxpayer money--a never ending flow of it to pay for govt inefficiency.-Yes the rail lines in the UK,according to Jack, cover operating costs.With UK taxpayer money..
And Jack is fine with that as long as he's not bearing the brunt of it.

How sad that there are still those whose right wing dogma means they know the cost of everything, and the value of nothing.

A well run, efficient railway represents huge value to the GDP of any country - far more than the costs of subsidy.

And if you want examples, try Germany, Japan, in fact most of Europe.

Getting your workers to work on time and freight to where it needs to be (and keeping it off crowded roads) counts for a lot. And keeping prices affordable counts for a lot more. Those advantages certainly outweigh subsidies.

So you’re happy to kick in extra taxes out of your pay packet so that rail users can pay lower fares?

Taking the profit out of the railways would negate any tax rises. How about we do stuff like close all tax loopholes? Make every company in the UK pay tax even the ones registered abroad, cancel all non dom tax breaks. Why should the 95% pay for tax avoiders?

[Rolluplostinspace]

'The private sector is superior'. Time to move on from this old dogma
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... mythbuster

[Maddog]

Does privatisation result in less tax-payers' money?



Government support to the rail industry is roughly three times what it was at the end of the 1980s, varying year to year.

If it's really private it does. Corporatism or crony capitalism, not so much.

It's why Americans cant buy new Studebakers.

[Gigabit]

The simple fact is the railways were underinvested in for years and years prior to privatisation, to make them appealing to privatise.

[McAz]

Does privatisation result in less tax-payers' money?



Government support to the rail industry is roughly three times what it was at the end of the 1980s, varying year to year.

If it's really private it does. Corporatism or crony capitalism, not so much.

It's why Americans cant buy new Studebakers.

I don't what you mean by 'really private'.
I do know that the private train operators paid £200million to their shareholders after recieving £4billion in taxpayer subsidies - sounds like robbery to me.

[MungoBrush]

Why should the 95% pay for tax avoiders?

Got an ISA? You’re a tax avoider
Pay into your pension plan? You’re a tax avoider

The 95% are already tax avoiders themselves

[Maddog]

Does privatisation result in less tax-payers' money?



Government support to the rail industry is roughly three times what it was at the end of the 1980s, varying year to year.

If it's really private it does. Corporatism or crony capitalism, not so much.

It's why Americans cant buy new Studebakers.

I don't what you mean by 'really private'.
I do know that the private train operators paid £200million to their shareholders after recieving £4billion in taxpayer subsidies - sounds like robbery to me.

Private means no subsidies. All expenses and profits must be covered by revenues.

Like if you opened McAz's Kabob Shop. If you don't make enough money, you go out of business. It's the "free" part of the free market.

[Cannydc]

I suspect that the reason that can't happen pretty much universally with railways is the immense costs of infrastructure maintenance and replacement.

To cover that, fares would have to double, and that negates all the reasons to get people to use it in the first place.

[Maddog]

I suspect that the reason that can't happen pretty much universally with railways is the immense costs of infrastructure maintenance and replacement.

To cover that, fares would have to double, and that negates all the reasons to get people to use it in the first place.

That's part of it. We had privately owned trains in the US that did rather well up into the 1930's. Even had them here in Texas. The competition from cars killed them. A train has to be considerably cheaper to travel in than a car, to make it desirable. Even with your asinine fuel prices, it seems that cars are still cheap enough to require trains to be subsidized or government owned to make it.

[McAz]

Does privatisation result in less tax-payers' money?



Government support to the rail industry is roughly three times what it was at the end of the 1980s, varying year to year.

If it's really private it does. Corporatism or crony capitalism, not so much.

It's why Americans cant buy new Studebakers.

I don't what you mean by 'really private'.
I do know that the private train operators paid £200million to their shareholders after recieving £4billion in taxpayer subsidies - sounds like robbery to me.

Private means no subsidies. All expenses and profits must be covered by revenues.

Like if you opened McAz's Kabob Shop. If you don't make enough money, you go out of business. It's the "free" part of the free market.

Cheers - but I think I'll open a railway if anything - you get free money and get to play with trains.

[Maddog]

Does privatisation result in less tax-payers' money?



Government support to the rail industry is roughly three times what it was at the end of the 1980s, varying year to year.

If it's really private it does. Corporatism or crony capitalism, not so much.

It's why Americans cant buy new Studebakers.

I don't what you mean by 'really private'.
I do know that the private train operators paid £200million to their shareholders after recieving £4billion in taxpayer subsidies - sounds like robbery to me.

Private means no subsidies. All expenses and profits must be covered by revenues.

Like if you opened McAz's Kabob Shop. If you don't make enough money, you go out of business. It's the "free" part of the free market.

Cheers - but I think I'll open a railway if anything - you get free money and get to play with trains.

It does seem like a pretty good deal.

Only thing better would be government subsidized strip club.

[McAz]

Private means no subsidies. All expenses and profits must be covered by revenues.

Like if you opened McAz's Kabob Shop. If you don't make enough money, you go out of business. It's the "free" part of the free market.

Cheers - but I think I'll open a railway if anything - you get free money and get to play with trains.

It does seem like a pretty good deal.

Only thing better would be government subsidized strip club.

Even better, a mobile one on a train.

[Punk]

Why should the 95% pay for tax avoiders?

Got an ISA? You’re a tax avoider
Pay into your pension plan? You’re a tax avoider

The 95% are already tax avoiders themselves

I have neither. I'm talking about tax avoiding CORPORATIONS. Do you know what they are and which political political party they support?