On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 11:43:47 +0100
Recliner wrote:
Council tax wouldn't come into it. The subsidy is from central government.

Some £6m TfL subsidy already comes from Council tax. I can't see the

6m probably doesn't even cover the yearly costs of the water for staff tea.
How much is government subsidy , a couple of billion?

central government increasing its TfL subsidy enough to produce flat

I'm not saying they would, I'm saying they should.

B2003

On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 11:45:46 +0100
"Peter Masson" wrote:
Boltar wrote

Council tax wouldn't come into it. The subsidy is from central government.

So what rate of income tax, or VAT, would you accept to pay for it? Should

No idea but while successive bleeing heart governments are quite happy to
flush billions in foreign aid down 3rd world toilets (and not so 3rd world
in the case of india with its own space program) to assuage their own
middle class guilt, there is no reason they couldn't spend the money on
something more worthwhile.

other public services - gas, electricity, telephones, water and sewerage, be
heavily subsidised out of taxation?

Yes. The clue is in the word "public". And instead of looking it as subsidy
look at it as investment. If there was no tube just how long do you think
the economy of london and ergo most of the UK would last - a month maybe?

B2003

On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 12:01:16 +0100
Graeme Wall wrote:
25% larger or 20% smaller, whichever you prefer, is quite a big

I said smaller, hence the 20%.

difference. Would you say a 20% cut in your income was not that much?

I've had a 50% drop in my income at various times in my career. Didn't bother
me unduly.

So if it works in cities the size of moscow and new york it would work here
and special pleading about london being some unusual case due to its size is
specious at best.

You were the one making size comparisons (oo er missis!)

No, the post I was replying to did when he said barcelona was small compared
to london. So I suggested moscow as an alternative.

Yes. Mainly because it would cost me less in the long run. I subsidise
buses and trains oop narf via my taxes which I'm never going to use, no
reason
they can't subsidise the tube a bit more.


I bet you change your mind in the voting booth.

Well, I can't disprove that so no point arguing the toss about it. Suffice
to say, the current fares on the tube are absurd.

B2003

On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 11:25:02 +0000 (UTC), d
wrote:

Well, I can't disprove that so no point arguing the toss about it. Suffice
to say, the current fares on the tube are absurd.

Do you mean absurdly complex, or absurdly expensive?

On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 11:18:32 +0000 (UTC), d
wrote:

On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 11:45:46 +0100
"Peter Masson" wrote:
Boltar wrote

Council tax wouldn't come into it. The subsidy is from central government.

So what rate of income tax, or VAT, would you accept to pay for it? Should

No idea but while successive bleeing heart governments are quite happy to
flush billions in foreign aid down 3rd world toilets (and not so 3rd world
in the case of india with its own space program) to assuage their own
middle class guilt, there is no reason they couldn't spend the money on
something more worthwhile.

other public services - gas, electricity, telephones, water and sewerage, be
heavily subsidised out of taxation?

Yes. The clue is in the word "public". And instead of looking it as subsidy
look at it as investment. If there was no tube just how long do you think
the economy of london and ergo most of the UK would last - a month maybe?

Yes, I think the general idea is that the subsidy is focused mainly on
investment, with running costs to be covered mainly from the fare box.

On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 12:04:09 +0100, Graeme Wall wrote:

Thanks, Roland. I was under the impression that the bus services in
London were operated by companies that were in it for profit.

They are.


Do we know how much of the subsidy ends up in the pockets of private
individuals in the form of dividend? Likewise for the railway?


(I'm reading this in uk.railway, so that's where I've set follow-ups.)

--
Alex

In article , Recliner
writes

Do you mean absurdly complex, or absurdly expensive?

Both. (I was in London recently.)

I do understand that some of it is to try and bring an antiquated
network creaking at the seams up to modern standards.

Turning to the railways system in general, I had some friends staying
over from Germany recently. They think our railway system is hopelessly
antiquated and pointed to their modern system. They went quiet when I
pointed out that we're still dealing with infrastructure built in the
1800s that has had epic underinvestment ever since, not to mention two
world wars started by their country, whereas their system has had the
benefit of massive state subsidy plus rebuilding since the war.

--
(\_/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 12:32:11 +0100
Recliner wrote:
On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 11:25:02 +0000 (UTC), d
wrote:

Well, I can't disprove that so no point arguing the toss about it. Suffice
to say, the current fares on the tube are absurd.

Do you mean absurdly complex, or absurdly expensive?

Both.

B2003

In message , at 10:44:16 on Thu, 20 Sep 2012,
Alex Potter remarked:
It's often more of a case of how big the subsidy is. Not unusual for
some overseas Public Transport operations to run on the basis of one
third fare box, two thirds subsidy.

TFL costs about twice the farebox revenue to run, iirc (£5.5bn operating
costs plus £2bn capital projects) versus £3.5bn. So not exactly
"profitable".

Thanks, Roland. I was under the impression that the bus services in
London were operated by companies that were in it for profit.

The bus operations are contracted out, and the companies make a small
profit, in the same sense that the bus drivers aren't working for
nothing either. It's unclear whether contracting them out saves or costs
money (compared to TFL owning and running the buses itself) but it's
pretty finely balanced I reckon.
--
Roland Perry

On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 14:06:10 +0100, Roland Perry wrote:

The bus operations are contracted out, and the companies make a small
profit, in the same sense that the bus drivers aren't working for
nothing either. It's unclear whether contracting them out saves or costs
money (compared to TFL owning and running the buses itself) but it's
pretty finely balanced I reckon.

Fine balance or not, it invariably costs more to provide a service, or
the workers are exploited worse, when a formerly publicly-owned service
is run for the benefit of shareholders, rather than that of the general
public.


--
Alex