In message , at 13:43:43 on
Mon, 8 Jan 2018, Recliner remarked:
What makes you think they have the power to borrow the money required?

Are you joking? Of course the Treasury can borrow more. It does so
all the time.

But can it borrow money to prop up TfL's current account? Remember - the
funds raised by the sale/leaseback are being used keep TfL going on a
day to day basis.

No, as stated in Paul's tweet that started this thread, they're to
help fund the new Piccadilly line fleet.

As an outright purchase (which I agree would be sending money round in
circles) or to pay a different set of leasing costs?
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 13:47:38 on
Mon, 8 Jan 2018, Recliner remarked:

I'm assuming

Well, there you go.

Well, it's a pretty safe assumption, and you don't have any facts,
either.

Come back when you have some.

And vice versa. Not having facts or the latest publicly available
information certainly doesn't stop you commenting on everything.

Everything? Really!!

I don't even comment on a fraction of the postings in half of the
threads in this one newsgroup, let alone the rest of the big wide world
out there.

You appear to have a very severe persecution complex.

Indeed, why did you even join this thread, as you have zero facts
related to it?

My accumulated understanding of how public finance works, is not "zero
facts".
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 13:50:15 on
Mon, 8 Jan 2018, Recliner remarked:

you could have at least read the tweet that started this thread.

The one which was deleted before I had a chance to. That one?
--
Roland Perry

Recliner wrote:

On Mon, 08 Jan 2018 07:33:05 -0600,
wrote:

In article ,
(Recliner) wrote:

On Mon, 8 Jan 2018 12:09:56 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message
-s
eptember.org, at 11:17:32 on Mon, 8 Jan 2018, Recliner
remarked:

How do you know what the cost of political upheaval after raising
taxes is likely to be?

But they wouldn't raise taxes. They'd just borrow the money more
cheaply, thus ultimately reducing future taxes.

What makes you think they have the power to borrow the money required?

Are you joking? Of course the Treasury can borrow more. It does so
all the time.

But the Treasury has to give TfL permission to borrow through them. And they
aren't.

I agree, but as I'm saying that's increasing the costs. Or TfL could
be allowed to issue its own bonds, which wouldn't be quite as cheap as
doing it through the Treasury, but would be a fraction of the cost of
a sale and leaseback of an old Tube fleet.

The issue is that would be seen as government backed as well, Increasing
government debt affwcts the interest payable on it thuis raidung
government spending. ALso there are many people complaining about
increasing debt. See the history of BR for underinvestment due to this.

What fraction of the cost of a sale and leaseback of an old Tube fleet
be? .001? or 99%?

--
Mark

On Mon, 8 Jan 2018 13:54:39 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at 13:43:43 on
Mon, 8 Jan 2018, Recliner remarked:
What makes you think they have the power to borrow the money required?

Are you joking? Of course the Treasury can borrow more. It does so
all the time.

But can it borrow money to prop up TfL's current account? Remember - the
funds raised by the sale/leaseback are being used keep TfL going on a
day to day basis.

No, as stated in Paul's tweet that started this thread, they're to
help fund the new Piccadilly line fleet.

As an outright purchase (which I agree would be sending money round in
circles) or to pay a different set of leasing costs?

The old stock will be worth much less than the new, so it's presumably
to part-fund the purchase of the new stock.

On Mon, 8 Jan 2018 14:02:31 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at 13:50:15 on
Mon, 8 Jan 2018, Recliner remarked:

you could have at least read the tweet that started this thread.

The one which was deleted before I had a chance to. That one?

Yes, that one.

Hint: Chris quoted it in his posting.

In article ,
(Recliner) wrote:

On Mon, 08 Jan 2018 07:33:05 -0600,
wrote:

In article ,
(Recliner) wrote:

On Mon, 8 Jan 2018 12:09:56 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message

-s
eptember.org, at 11:17:32 on Mon, 8 Jan 2018, Recliner
remarked:

How do you know what the cost of political upheaval after raising
taxes is likely to be?

But they wouldn't raise taxes. They'd just borrow the money more
cheaply, thus ultimately reducing future taxes.

What makes you think they have the power to borrow the money required?

Are you joking? Of course the Treasury can borrow more. It does so
all the time.

But the Treasury has to give TfL permission to borrow through them. And
they aren't.

I agree, but as I'm saying that's increasing the costs. Or TfL could
be allowed to issue its own bonds, which wouldn't be quite as cheap as
doing it through the Treasury, but would be a fraction of the cost of
a sale and leaseback of an old Tube fleet.

The Government don't care. They want to punish Labour for the fares freeze.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

wrote:
In article ,
(Recliner) wrote:

On Mon, 08 Jan 2018 07:33:05 -0600,
wrote:

In article ,
(Recliner) wrote:

On Mon, 8 Jan 2018 12:09:56 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message

-s
eptember.org, at 11:17:32 on Mon, 8 Jan 2018, Recliner
remarked:

How do you know what the cost of political upheaval after raising
taxes is likely to be?

But they wouldn't raise taxes. They'd just borrow the money more
cheaply, thus ultimately reducing future taxes.

What makes you think they have the power to borrow the money required?

Are you joking? Of course the Treasury can borrow more. It does so
all the time.

But the Treasury has to give TfL permission to borrow through them. And
they aren't.

I agree, but as I'm saying that's increasing the costs. Or TfL could
be allowed to issue its own bonds, which wouldn't be quite as cheap as
doing it through the Treasury, but would be a fraction of the cost of
a sale and leaseback of an old Tube fleet.

The Government don't care. They want to punish Labour for the fares freeze.

Yes, that's a very good point.

wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Recliner) wrote:

On Mon, 08 Jan 2018 07:33:05 -0600,
wrote:

In article ,
(Recliner) wrote:

On Mon, 8 Jan 2018 12:09:56 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message

-s
eptember.org, at 11:17:32 on Mon, 8 Jan 2018, Recliner
remarked:

How do you know what the cost of political upheaval after raising
taxes is likely to be?

But they wouldn't raise taxes. They'd just borrow the money more
cheaply, thus ultimately reducing future taxes.

What makes you think they have the power to borrow the money
required?

Are you joking? Of course the Treasury can borrow more. It does so
all the time.

But the Treasury has to give TfL permission to borrow through them. And
they aren't.

I agree, but as I'm saying that's increasing the costs. Or TfL could
be allowed to issue its own bonds, which wouldn't be quite as cheap as
doing it through the Treasury, but would be a fraction of the cost of
a sale and leaseback of an old Tube fleet.

The Government don't care. They want to punish Labour for the fares
freeze.

Hm

I wonder what their plan is to win back the mayoralty in 2020 - only a 50%
fare increase?

tim

On Monday, 8 January 2018 18:45:13 UTC, tim... wrote:
Hm

I wonder what their plan is to win back the mayoralty in 2020 - only a 50%
fare increase?

tim

Obviously no one knows what the politicians are planning post 2020 but TfL are assuming fares will rise by RPI after the fares freeze. I got this from them when I recently FOI-ed a load of extra data from the new Business Plan.

--
Paul C
via Google