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.
Cannydc wrote:calitom wrote:Maddog wrote: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.
MungoBrush wrote:Cannydc wrote:calitom wrote:Maddog wrote: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?
McAz wrote: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.
Maddog wrote:McAz wrote: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.
Punk wrote: Why should the 95% pay for tax avoiders?
McAz wrote:Maddog wrote:McAz wrote: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.
Cannydc wrote: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 wrote:McAz wrote:Maddog wrote:McAz wrote: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.
McAz wrote:Maddog wrote:McAz wrote:Maddog wrote:McAz wrote: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 wrote:McAz wrote:Maddog wrote: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.
MungoBrush wrote:Punk wrote: 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
Return to News, Politics And Current Affairs
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests