On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 14:19:40 +0100, Steve Fitzgerald wrote:

So you think it's a good idea to discuss buses and general transport
issues only in a railway group?

No, I don't , but netiquette used to suggest that cross-posted threads
had followups set to a single froup.

--
Alex

In message , at 13:33:20 on Thu, 20 Sep
2012, Alex Potter remarked:
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.

I disagree. Operating efficiencies, and simply being an expert in the
field rather than a public servant amateur, can easily overwhelm the
tinkering at the edges you mention.
--
Roland Perry

On Sep 20, 11:55*am, Alex Potter wrote:

The basic rate of income tax was 35% in the days when we had good public
services.

Then there were these things called "elections".

ian

On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 08:13:38 -0700, ian batten wrote:

Then there were these things called "elections".

Yes, there were, when the people were manipulated by vested interests, as
they have been in just about every election ever, except that held in
1945. Low taxes are fine, as long as everyone has enough to eat and
somewhere to live.

--
Alex

"Alex Potter" wrote

The basic rate of income tax was 35% in the days when we had good public
services.

I'm not sure what date you're thinking of, but ITYF that that was not a real
rate of tax on earned incomes because of the 'two-ninths earned income
allowance'. And I suspect that at that date, whatever it was, there was far
less of a subsidy for public transport than there is now, in real terms.

Peter

On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 16:45:16 +0100, Peter Masson wrote:

I'm not sure what date you're thinking of, but ITYF that that was not a
real rate of tax on earned incomes because of the 'two-ninths earned
income allowance'. And I suspect that at that date, whatever it was,
there was far less of a subsidy for public transport than there is now,
in real terms.

1966. I paid tax, after allowances, at 35% on the remainder. I wasn't
earning very much - I was 20.

As for the subsidy, you may well be correct - I just paid my bus fare and
Birmingham Corporation Transport got me wherever I needed to go within
the city boundary.

--
Alex

On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 11:14:30 +0100, CD wrote:

On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 14:28:10 +0100, Peter Masson wrote:

You have to pay a GBP 5 deposit when you get an Oyster card, as well as the
credit you put on it. This stays on, as well as any unused credit, if you
keep the card for a further trip to London, though you can get the deposit
(and any unused credit) back if you hand your Oyster card in.

Thanks, that info is not so obvious on the website but on there somewhere I
presume.
So I drop into the newsagent by H&H buy an Oyster card & ask for £20
credit, I go do my travels & use £12.80 as I calculated, I then return the
Oyster to the shop on my return & get £7.20 back along with my £5 deposit?

No, you have to return it to a LU/LO station or to the Oyster
Ticketing and Refunds office, see e.g. :-
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloa...nuary_2012.pdf