In message

, at 05:40:44 on Fri, 7 Feb 2014, Recliner
remarked:
Why should the TOCs allow free travel? At the very least what Boris
should do is pick up the tab for all TOC trips made by the over-60's,
*paying the regular price* whatever that is according to the time of
day. Surely the numbers for that will drop out of the Oyster computer
'at the press of a button'.

Why should the charge be based on "the regular price"?

Because that's what each over-60 would have paid, absent the discount card.

Sure, but most wouldn't have travelled at all.

I'm not so sure. Plenty will be going to work, or some other
non-discretional trip.

That seems a
remarkably crude approach (c/f your own arguments about airline pricing
in December). Any normal person buying in such bulk would expect - and
get - a substantial discount as the TOCs get in return a secure source
of revenue with few overheads. What's wrong with starting from the
long-run marginal cost (LRMC) to the TOC (including of course loss of
revenue from other customers displaced) plus a profit margin?

Because many of the trains are already over-subscribed, and flooding them
with pass-holders may well put off regular travellers.

Not after 9:30. Plus Freedom pass holders on discretionary trips probably
avoid travelling on packed trains.

But we were told about "years of negotiations" (fruitless ones) to get
TOCs to offer travel before 9.30 - so the TOCs believe there's an issue
of non-discretionary travel before 9.30
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:
In message
, at 05:40:44 on Fri, 7 Feb 2014, Recliner remarked:
Why should the TOCs allow free travel? At the very least what Boris
should do is pick up the tab for all TOC trips made by the over-60's,
*paying the regular price* whatever that is according to the time of
day. Surely the numbers for that will drop out of the Oyster computer
'at the press of a button'.

Why should the charge be based on "the regular price"?

Because that's what each over-60 would have paid, absent the discount card.

Sure, but most wouldn't have travelled at all.

I'm not so sure. Plenty will be going to work, or some other non-discretional trip.

That seems a
remarkably crude approach (c/f your own arguments about airline pricing
in December). Any normal person buying in such bulk would expect - and
get - a substantial discount as the TOCs get in return a secure source
of revenue with few overheads. What's wrong with starting from the
long-run marginal cost (LRMC) to the TOC (including of course loss of
revenue from other customers displaced) plus a profit margin?

Because many of the trains are already over-subscribed, and flooding them
with pass-holders may well put off regular travellers.

Not after 9:30. Plus Freedom pass holders on discretionary trips probably
avoid travelling on packed trains.

But we were told about "years of negotiations" (fruitless ones) to get
TOCs to offer travel before 9.30 - so the TOCs believe there's an issue of
non-discretionary travel before 9.30

And they're right. People who regularly travel before 9:30 probably are
still in work, so there would be a loss of revenue. But those who mainly
travel after 9:30 are much more likely to be retired, on discretionary
trips, so there's very little loss of revenue.

Why is this so hard for you to grasp?

In message

, at 06:56:22 on Fri, 7 Feb 2014, Recliner
remarked:
And they're right. People who regularly travel before 9:30 probably are
still in work, so there would be a loss of revenue. But those who mainly
travel after 9:30 are much more likely to be retired, on discretionary
trips, so there's very little loss of revenue.

Why is this so hard for you to grasp?

Because I know employed people who delay their journey until 9:30 to get
a free ride [tm].

Why do you find it so hard to grasp that removing the 9:30 threshold
would open the flood gates?
--
Roland Perry

"Robin" wrote

e. there's an existing system for dealing with "who's wealthy?"
called the tax system, and taxing the benefit of Freedom Passes etc
would be more rational - but still complicated.


incredibly complicated since you can't buy one nor anything equivalent so no
price to tax

plus the cost to the local authority can vary from the issue cost to more
than an annual season.



--
Mike D

incredibly complicated since you can't buy one nor anything
equivalent so no price to tax

I had envisaged that it would be taxed, like many benefits in kind, on
the cost to the provider (the default position)
..
plus the cost to the local authority can vary from the issue cost to
more than an annual season.

Sorry but I don't follow that. AIUI from the London Council budgets the
total cost of Freedom Passes is apportioned to boroughs on the basis of
usage data based on sampling, not records of every single journey by
every pass. So the cost of providing any single Freedom Pass does not
depend on the use of that pass by that particular person. It follows
that the taxable benefit would similarly not vary with use. (There is
ample precedent for that. Eg many employers provide employees with
private medical insurance under a group policy with a single premium.
Each employee is assessed on an apportioned share of the cost
irrespective of the use they make of the cover and of their age, medical
history etc.)

--
Robin
reply to address is (meant to be) valid

"Michael R N Dolbear" wrote in message
...


"Robin" wrote

e. there's an existing system for dealing with "who's wealthy?"
called the tax system, and taxing the benefit of Freedom Passes etc
would be more rational - but still complicated.

-------------------------------------------------------------

how can you tax something that people are entitled to, but don't actually
use

tim

how can you tax something that people are entitled to, but don't
actually use


HMRC do it all the time. Eg the common one is employees who get
employer-provided private medical insurance but make no claims.

But there's also employees who have employer-provided accommodation
available to them but don't use it in a tax year; employees who have a
car available to them for private use by reason of their employment but
do not use it; .............

Let me know if you want more boring stuff about the taxation of benefits
in kind which I am sorry to say I have yet to forget entirely

--
Robin
reply to address is (meant to be) valid

On 07/02/2014 12:56, Recliner wrote:

And they're right. People who regularly travel before 9:30 probably are
still in work, so there would be a loss of revenue. But those who mainly
travel after 9:30 are much more likely to be retired, on discretionary
trips, so there's very little loss of revenue.

But there would be loss of space on the trains if they could travel free
before 09.30. I can imagine that if a member of a hard-working family
was expected to give up their seat (if they get one) to a pensioner off
on a free jolly, it might make rail less attractive to people who are
currently choosing rail over road transport, rather than choosing it
over waiting a bit for free travel to kick in.

I know of people who start work "late" so they get free travel, which
might be a good thing in terms of capacity use.


--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

In message , at 19:09:10 on
Fri, 7 Feb 2014, Paul Corfield remarked:

Please point me to the place where I said they *should* offer free
travel?

I wasn't suggesting you had.
--
Roland Perry

"Robin" wrote in message ...

how can you tax something that people are entitled to, but don't
actually use


HMRC do it all the time. Eg the common one is employees who get
employer-provided private medical insurance but make no claims.

But there's also employees who have employer-provided accommodation
available to them but don't use it in a tax year; employees who have a
car available to them for private use by reason of their employment but
do not use it; .............

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The value of medical insurance is in it being there if you need it, not in
the actual usage. The potential claim if you do need it could be orders of
magnitude greater than the premium

there is little value in having a bus pass that you expect never to use.
The maximum that you might save in "emergency" use is going to be a fiver

as to these other employee provided things that you don't use, then being
taxed on it if you know that you don't use it is your fault for being stupid
enough not to negotiate "giving it back". (OK I know that you can't give
personal use of a company car back, but who the hell has a company car and
never ever ever uses it for personal journeys)

tim