On 5 Jan, 02:04, thedarkman wrote:
Similar to the tragedy of the commons, but the argument is not quite
the same. There would undoubtedly be increased use of public travel,
but by the same token there would be far fewer cars on the roads,
which must be a good thing.

Also, free travel is not quite the same as free consumer goods because
the number of passengers can never exceed the number of people. *Most
of the arguments opposed to this are "moral" arguments such as people
shouldn't have the right to free travel or the even more stupid
argument that it will put people out of work. Do the mathematics and
I'll be you can't refute it.

On 4 Jan, 14:38, (Neil Williams) wrote:



On Sun, 4 Jan 2009 04:55:50 -0800 (PST), Chris

wrote:
Why should someone in darkest Cornwall have to pay for the costs of
London (& other large cities)? (through their taxes, of
course)......it's a stupid suggestion that got the response it
deserved.

You could put it on Council Tax, and thus have it charged to the
people that use it.

However, it misses one major point - fares are a useful way of
controlling demand. *Without them, how do you spread loadings across
peak/off-peak times?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Rubbish - there is the very fair presumption that if you use it, you
should pay for it....